Southwest reportedly ordering larger 737's

[klfrodo]

http://www.king5.com/news/business/111940939.html

[Fattony]

Any more room than on the current planes, or just more people (e.g., longer lines at the check-in counters and boarding gate, longer to board/disembark, get your luggage)? I gather that any international flights would be just the relatively short-haul flights to Mexico and the Caribbean, since going a long ways without meals could be tough. Of course, the important thing will be the fares they charge.

[Keith1010]

As the article notes, these plans make it possible for longer flights to open up markets for Southwest such as Hawaii. All good for the consumer.

 

We have found the boarding process on Southwest to be quite good.

 

Keith

[scottbee]

As the article notes, these plans make it possible for longer flights to open up markets for Southwest such as Hawaii. All good for the consumer.

 

We have found the boarding process on Southwest to be quite good.

 

The reasons that WN doesn't fly to Hawaii aren't solved by a new aircraft type 73H (737-800 w/ winglets) which has a shorter range than WN's existing 73G (737-700s w/winglets).

 

The problem is that WN's existing aircraft, maintenance, and crew lack ETOPS certification (Extended Twin Operations aka Engines Turn or Passengers Swim); which is what allows them to legally fly more than 60 minutes from shore in a twin engined aircraft.

[Keith1010]

The reasons that WN doesn't fly to Hawaii aren't solved by a new aircraft type 73H (737-800 w/ winglets) which has a shorter range than WN's existing 73G (737-700s w/winglets).

 

The problem is that WN's existing aircraft, maintenance, and crew lack ETOPS certification (Extended Twin Operations aka Engines Turn or Passengers Swim); which is what allows them to legally fly more than 60 minutes from shore in a twin engined aircraft.

 

Thanks. Good to know.

[Eemrald]

The problem is that WN's existing aircraft, maintenance, and crew lack ETOPS certification (Extended Twin Operations aka Engines Turn or Passengers Swim); which is what allows them to legally fly more than 60 minutes from shore in a twin engined aircraft.

 

 

And WN is working on this. The new 800's will have ETOPS, higher thrust engines, and also the new sky interior which is not only interior lighting, but the controls for passengers, the bins and the windows are different.

 

As for the certification, there is a job posting on southwest.com for an ETOPS Program manager.

 

Southwest will be flying longer distances by 2012.

 

:)

[steve20832]

Yes it is true, they ordered 20 737-800's due for delivery in 2012 with ETOPS

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/news/southwest-airlines-announces-20-firm-boeing-737-800-deliveries-2012

 

If they do end up aquiring Airtran, it will get interesting how many 737's they keep. I'm sure all the 717's will be given back to the lease company or sold.

I'm sure the 737-800's will be used mostly for long haul flights.

[spongerob]

How much bigger does a 737 have to get before it turns into a baby 757? It's getting harder and harder to tell the two types apart unless you count how many tires are on the main landing gear.

[scottbee]

And WN is working on this. The new 800's will have ETOPS, higher thrust engines, and also the new sky interior which is not only interior lighting, but the controls for passengers, the bins and the windows are different.

 

As for the certification, there is a job posting on southwest.com for an ETOPS Program manager.

 

Southwest will be flying longer distances by 2012.

 

:)

 

I don't doubt WN will be flying longer distances, I however doubt they'll get it all done within a year. it took AS well over a year to get ETOPS for their routes to Hawaii.

 

It's really quite amazing that an aircraft that US airlines initially didn't really want (the 737 launch customer was Lufthansa) can now operate trans-oceanic routes, and is the backbone of the short-medium haul fleet for so many airlines. Increases in efficiency with new engines and winglets has been a complete game changer for the 737; and also the 757.

[Sargent_Schultz]

As the article notes, these plans make it possible for longer flights to open up markets for Southwest such as Hawaii. All good for the consumer.

 

We have found the boarding process on Southwest to be quite good.

 

Keith

 

Absolutely. Besides Mexico, the Caribbean, and Hawaii, SWA has expressed interest in South America which would certainly be doable. and Canada, if they are interested.

 

Europe will take a little longer.

 

By picking up AirTran they will be getting some Caribbean routes from the get go.

 

As for boarding, I still find SWA superior to the airlines that charge for luggage. Once upon a time, some would board from the back to the front but now some have about 50 early boarding groups which clog everything up.

[Fattony]

Absolutely. Besides Mexico, the Caribbean, and Hawaii, SWA has expressed interest in South America which would certainly be doable. and Canada, if they are interested.

 

 

I could maybe see Mexico as a possibility, but South America?? With their current set-up (no meals or films, lack of biz/first class, lack of interline agreements for transfer of bags, lack of presence on international booking Web sites, etc.)? They can indicate interest in flying to places like Brazil and Argentina, but being able to do so would depend on governmental agreements, since there are limited numbers of flights allowed. I'm not aware of anyone flying between the U.S. and Brazil (where we reside) in a plane smaller than a 757, but maybe the larger 737s could do it (if properly equipped).

 

I believe the shortest U.S.-Brazil flight is currently a bit over 5 hours (Miami to Manaus). The more likely markets, such as Rio and Sao Paulo, required about 8 1/2 hours each way, even from Miami. Flying to international locations does, of course, involve even more government regulation (and by at least 2 governments) than does flying domestically. And carries more risks financially. Some markets that once looked good can change. Delta started flying from Atlanta to Fortaleza and Recife in one circuit, then started flying to both cities separately, then cut both cities All within a period of about 2 years.

 

They'd also have to train staff to speak at least two languages, set up offices and marketing campaigns abroad, etc. And, hopefully, be able to combine ticketing with "feeder" flights from other parts of the country (e.g., from other parts of Brazil in order to fly to the U.S. from Rio to Sao Paulo). US Airways just recently started flying from Rio to Charlotte, but their Web site cannot as of yet combine with local airines so someone can book from other cities in Brazil.

 

I guess indicating "interest" includes someone possibly saying "Sure, we'd maybe like to fly there someday."

[scottbee]

I could maybe see Mexico as a possibility, but South America?? With their current set-up (no meals or films, lack of biz/first class, lack of interline agreements for transfer of bags, lack of presence on international booking Web sites, etc.)? They can indicate interest in flying to places like Brazil and Argentina, but being able to do so would depend on governmental agreements, since there are limited numbers of flights allowed. I'm not aware of anyone flying between the U.S. and Brazil (where we reside) in a plane smaller than a 757, but maybe the larger 737s could do it (if properly equipped).

 

I believe the shortest U.S.-Brazil flight is currently a bit over 5 hours (Miami to Manaus). The more likely markets, such as Rio and Sao Paulo, required about 8 1/2 hours each way, even from Miami. Flying to international locations does, of course, involve even more government regulation (and by at least 2 governments) than does flying domestically. And carries more risks financially. Some markets that once looked good can change. Delta started flying from Atlanta to Fortaleza and Recife in one circuit, then started flying to both cities separately, then cut both cities All within a period of about 2 years.

 

They'd also have to train staff to speak at least two languages, set up offices and marketing campaigns abroad, etc. And, hopefully, be able to combine ticketing with "feeder" flights from other parts of the country (e.g., from other parts of Brazil in order to fly to the U.S. from Rio to Sao Paulo). US Airways just recently started flying from Rio to Charlotte, but their Web site cannot as of yet combine with local airines so someone can book from other cities in Brazil.

 

I guess indicating "interest" includes someone possibly saying "Sure, we'd maybe like to fly there someday."

 

Perhaps into Columbia or Venezuela; but the 737s lacks the legs to reach into the major population centres of Brazil and Argentina. And, people are unlikely to fly a one-class; scramble seating airline for a journey of 6+hrs.

[fbgd]

Southwest reportedly ordering larger 737's

 

Is the 737' a new addition to the series? :p

 

 

Nee-naw...busted by the apostrophe police;)

[wcook]

And, people are unlikely to fly a one-class; scramble seating airline for a journey of 6+hrs.

Southwest has many 5+ hour fights within the US. I believe the longest are New England -> Vegas, at just under 6 hours Westbound. Peope are certainly willing to fly those. I don't see flights to SA being different.

 

Although it's not for everybody, "scramble seating" is extremely popular with Southwest passengers. Again, not sure sure why that would be different flying overseas.

 

And unless you are one of the few people flying in first/business class, it's nicer to be on a one-class plane.

 

I don't know about all the logistics and finances, but if Southwest wants to fly to South America, I doubt they'll have trouble finding passengers. Good prices and great customer service are always attracive!

[klfrodo]

Is the 737' a new addition to the series? :p

 

 

Nee-naw...busted by the apostrophe police;)

 

Damn You!!! busted again

[Sargent_Schultz]

Perhaps into Columbia or Venezuela; but the 737s lacks the legs to reach into the major population centres of Brazil and Argentina. And, people are unlikely to fly a one-class; scramble seating airline for a journey of 6+hrs.

 

Who says they would fly non-stop? Who says SWA can't have a hub outside of the US?

[scottbee]

Who says they would fly non-stop? Who says SWA can't have a hub outside of the US?

 

WN's longest flight is WN728 PVD-LAS at 2363 miles; and from what I can see, rarely goes over 6 hours (3 times since it started last month). Some domestic routes over the lower 48 are longer on a 737, AS17 MIA-SEA jumps to mind, a butt numbing 6h55m when I took it on Monday.

 

As for foreign hubs, you can operate a hub in a foreign country, but can only connect YOUR passengers (otherwise you're looking at cabotage or getting 5th freedom rights); so you pretty much have to operate a scissor hub where you'd have (example) flights from LAX, HOU and FLL all meet somewhere (say PTY); people would swap between three flights, and then 3 flights branch from there to say GRU/GIG/SCL. Not a great product offering for a business traveler.

 

Only foreign hubs I can think of these days is NRT where some of the carriers operate a small fleet to connect their USA-Japan traffic onwards. In the past FRA was also a hub, but mostly because of weird post WWII laws where LH couldn't operate FRA-TXL, but PA could.

 

SWA would get murdered trying to compete against the major airlines into Brazil and Chile using their existing product.

 

No one doubts WN will expand out of the lower 48, but I would expect to see Central America and Canada 1st. However nothing will happen outside of perhaps Alaska (which is very freight dependent, not a WN strong suit), until the FL merger is complete; and WN's reservations systems are brought out of the dark ages.

[Sargent_Schultz]

WN's longest flight is WN728 PVD-LAS at 2363 miles; and from what I can see, rarely goes over 6 hours (3 times since it started last month). Some domestic routes over the lower 48 are longer on a 737, AS17 MIA-SEA jumps to mind, a butt numbing 6h55m when I took it on Monday.

 

As for foreign hubs, you can operate a hub in a foreign country, but can only connect YOUR passengers (otherwise you're looking at cabotage or getting 5th freedom rights); so you pretty much have to operate a scissor hub where you'd have (example) flights from LAX, HOU and FLL all meet somewhere (say PTY); people would swap between three flights, and then 3 flights branch from there to say GRU/GIG/SCL. Not a great product offering for a business traveler.

 

Only foreign hubs I can think of these days is NRT where some of the carriers operate a small fleet to connect their USA-Japan traffic onwards. In the past FRA was also a hub, but mostly because of weird post WWII laws where LH couldn't operate FRA-TXL, but PA could.

 

SWA would get murdered trying to compete against the major airlines into Brazil and Chile using their existing product.

 

No one doubts WN will expand out of the lower 48, but I would expect to see Central America and Canada 1st. However nothing will happen outside of perhaps Alaska (which is very freight dependent, not a WN strong suit), until the FL merger is complete; and WN's reservations systems are brought out of the dark ages.

 

 

I expect to see SWA expand to Caribbean first. Unlike America Worst and others, SWA has disciplined expansion. No bailout, needed.

 

SWA obviously has not listened to your advice in the past; why would they start now? They still make MONEY Despite all odds against them since day 1, they survive. And bags still fly FREE. :p

[scottbee]

I expect to see SWA expand to Caribbean first. Unlike America Worst and others, SWA has disciplined expansion. No bailout, needed.

 

SWA obviously has not listened to your advice in the past; why would they start now? They still make MONEY Despite all odds against them since day 1, they survive. And bags still fly FREE. :p

 

Given WN just purchased a carrier that already flies to the Caribbean, I would think WN to the Caribbean is pretty much a done deal; not much deductive reasoning there.

 

As for my advice; what advice have I given them in the past that they haven't followed? Pretty much the entire airline industry agrees there will be no international flights until they fix their reservation system.

 

And while bags fly for no extra charge, remember that you still need to pay extra if you even want a chance at a decent seat, unlike most other carriers. I'm not bashing WN, they provide a good product for a good price; but it's not the be-all end-all of air carriers, as you seem so intent on advertising in here.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Pretty much the entire industry predicted SWA would fail from day one. They were wrong. Air Tran already does fly internationally, so once the merger is approved, SWA will, by definition, be flying internationally.

 

SWA didn't get to where they are by following examples set by other less successful airlines. SWA has better management, a better business model, and is profitable. I doubt there will be any rush to expand beyond their means, ala America Worst and others.

 

It is absolute nonsense that you have to pay extra for a chance at a decent seat. There are lots of decent seats on the planes and most people end up with decent seats whether or not they choose early boarding.

 

On a recent Delta flight that was delayed for hours, I was put on a different Delta flight with a "reserved" seat that turn out to less than half a seat because I was stuck between two summo amazons. I would have much rather had my choice of any open seat.

 

No advertising - just facts.

[greatam]

Pretty much the entire industry predicted SWA would fail from day one. They were wrong. Air Tran already does fly internationally, so once the merger is approved, SWA will, by definition, be flying internationally.

 

SWA didn't get to where they are by following examples set by other less successful airlines. SWA has better management, a better business model, and is profitable. I doubt there will be any rush to expand beyond their means, ala America Worst and others.

 

It is absolute nonsense that you have to pay extra for a chance at a decent seat. There are lots of decent seats on the planes and most people end up with decent seats whether or not they choose early boarding.

 

On a recent Delta flight that was delayed for hours, I was put on a different Delta flight with a "reserved" seat that turn out to less than half a seat because I was stuck between two summo amazons. I would have much rather had my choice of any open seat.

 

No advertising - just facts.

 

As I sit here in the VERY luxurious lounge at Abu Dhabi waiting for my flight to JFK (I just flew in from Doha), I cannot IMAGINE WN competing on an equal scale in Europe, the Middle East, Asia or even far south South America. Ryan Air would wipe them out in Europe if the owner of Ryan Air gets his way and flies to the USA (he definitely has an uphill battle). Business travelers are money makers for US airlines flying internationally. Coach barely pays the bills. Herb's not in charge anymore.

 

Leisure travelers from the USA would be attracted to WN internationally-sure (again, the WN mindset-"we are always the cheapest"-just like WalMart). This mindset is a pure fallacy. Been shopping for meat at Walmart recently??? Most expensive meat in Phoenix and Kansas City. Cheapo coach fares are NOT a money maker for an airline. It is SURVIVAL mode. Spirit flies to northern South America for VERY cheap fares. The planes are NOT full.

 

You are a walking, talking advertisement for WN. Bags fly free and everything else constantly. Wonder how many shares of WN you own??

 

My company had a contest that ended Sept 30. 1 week in Las Vegas, all expenses paid including 5 days of Cirque shows (except for food, drinks and casino spending) PLUS your pay check and no deduction in vacation days. The one week was during Cirque Week which was Nov. 29-Dec. 4. This is normally a VERY slow travel time. My admin and office manager in the Missouri office were in charge of arrangements. The employee that won is from Kansas City, PRIME WN territory. They flew AA. The WN nonstop was $64 MORE EACH WAY. The WN 1 stoppers were $33 more. Why would you pay MORE to fly WN even when you figure in the baggage charges???

 

WN has its place (leisure travelers to cruise ports when booked VERY early). But they have a LOT of downsides for anyone other than leisure travelers!!!

[Fattony]

Venezuela? Really? Familiar with the politics of the region?

 

I've been in Brazil long enough to have seen the machinatins involve in airlines coming into, and leaving, markets in the region. There's a big difference between a 5+ hour flight in the U.S. and an 8 1/2-10 hour flight across several national borders. One-class flights, perhaps. No meals for that long? More of a stretch. A whole new group of criteria the pilots, flight attendants, etc. would have to meet. More importantly, of course, is that agreements between national governments are required when a carrier of one country wants to set up flights to another country and, as I said, there are limited numbers of slots.

 

Set up a hub system in another region? Multiply the agreements, not just for the flights, but for hiring of personnel, currency exchanges, marketing, etc. Plus changeable markets. A U.S. airline couldn't decide to carry passengers between cities in another country. Usually prohibited (as it is in the U.S., though foreign carriers can do so through agreements with local airlines-- which SW does not have). SW could eventually work out an agreement with local airlines for feeder systems (e.g., so that flyers from Argentina not starting in Buenos Aires or passengers in Brazil not starting in Rio or Sao Paulo could book flights on SW to the U.S.). Also need to set up agreements for airline maintenance. BTW, you might want to look up just how many passengrs between South America and the U.S. fly Biz/First Class. I believe the per centage is higher than for domestic fights.

 

Southwest has been successful in its current business model. Relatively short-haul flights, such as to the Caribbean and a few Mexican cities, could fit into that, with some obvious changes. Adding long-haul flights to places such as Brazil and Argentina would be a big, big change. SW is obviously looking to expand, but they are smart enough to know that a company successful with one model has to be careful in changing that too much, especially in a field such as airline travel littered with many failures.

[Sargent_Schultz]

You are a walking, talking advertisement for WN. Bags fly free and everything else constantly. Wonder how many shares of WN you own??

 

You are a walking, talking, well known hater of SWA. How many shares? Zero (0). I do, however, own some WalMart and Carnival. All may sometimes cheapest, but that is a side effect of being the best value. ;)

 

WN has its place (leisure travelers to cruise ports when booked VERY early). But they have a LOT of downsides for anyone other than leisure travelers!!!

 

This is a cruise air board, so leisure travel is the name of the game. SWA very much has a place. There are lots of boards for biz travelers and/or those who have too much money to spend.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Also need to set up agreements for airline maintenance. BTW, you might want to look up just how many passengrs between South America and the U.S. fly Biz/First Class. I believe the per centage is higher than for domestic fights.

 

Southwest has made it clear that they will continue the policies of open seating, only one class, no baggage fees, etc.

 

For those reasons and more, I tend to think they don't really care about any interline agreements.

 

I don't think SA flights are coming in the near future and that Hawaii will most likely happen before SA.

[wcook]

And while bags fly for no extra charge, remember that you still need to pay extra if you even want a chance at a decent seat, unlike most other carriers. I'm not bashing WN,

What's your definition of a decent seat?

 

To me, it's my choice of window or aisle, next to whoever I'm flying with. So there's absolutely no need to pay for early-bird check in to get a "decent seat" in my book.