Southwest 'casually' Looking At Smaller Jets

[runway4]

CHICAGO, Oct 20 (Reuters) - Southwest Airlines' (NYSE:LUV - News) chief financial officer said on Monday that the carrier was "casually" looking at using smaller 100-seat jets but was not close to reaching a decision on the issue.
"It's something that we have only casually begun to look at and certainly haven't gotten serious," CFO Gary Kelly said in a conference call with analysts and reporters.

Southwest's fleet currently consists of only one type of aircraft, the Boeing 737. Kelly also said the Dallas-based low-cost carrier was considering in-flight entertainment offerings.

 

[JS]

Southwest is plenty big enough to handle a second fleet type. The economies of scale by sticking with 737's going forward are very small.

Smaller planes (I still advocate turboprops) will make it possible for Southwest to serve many, many more aiports, like GSP, where I live . The flight choices out of existing and small WN airports is quite limited with only 737's (e.g., JAN and JAX).

I would suggest strictly audio, including pilot-ATC communications, for in-flight entertainment. Installing idiot boxes adds a lot of weight and limits your video choices to just one (unless you put one in every seat, which makes the screens really small).

As far as the pilot-ATC communications (call it channel 8 or channel 10, since UA calls it Channel 9), please REQUIRE all pilots to turn it on. UA captains have the right to turn it off, which in turn, turns me off to UA. Why advertise something if it's off almost half the time?

 

[KCFlyer]

Southwest is plenty big enough to handle a second fleet type. The economies of scale by sticking with 737's going forward are very small.

Smaller planes (I still advocate turboprops) will make it possible for Southwest to serve many, many more aiports, like GSP, where I live . The flight choices out of existing and small WN airports is quite limited with only 737's (e.g., JAN and JAX).

I would suggest strictly audio, including pilot-ATC communications, for in-flight entertainment. Installing idiot boxes adds a lot of weight and limits your video choices to just one (unless you put one in every seat, which makes the screens really small).

As far as the pilot-ATC communications (call it channel 8 or channel 10, since UA calls it Channel 9), please REQUIRE all pilots to turn it on. UA captains have the right to turn it off, which in turn, turns me off to UA. Why advertise something if it's off almost half the time?

JS - as I seem to recall, Southwest is usually your last choice for airline travel Why should they invest in smaller planes to serve your community when your response would be to buy a ticket for a matching fare on US or DL?

For inflight entertainment - try a book. I remember my dad was on an UA flight several years ago. Weather in Dallas was stormy, and the plane had to hold a while. He heard his pilot call ATC and ask when they might be able to get into DFW as they were getting low on fuel and either had to get in or divert - NOW. That's a warm fuzzy feeling, and it's a reason that some pilots might opt to turn it off, lest they get some overly excitable person hyperventilating and screaming about how "we're all gonna die".

 

[JS]

Southwest is my last choice primarily because they don't fly to GSP, AVL, CLT, CAE, FLO, ATL, MSP, DEN, LGA, JFK, EWR or DFW.

If Southwest really does have better legroom than DL, US, CO and NW, I don't think I would mind flying Southwest. Add seat assignments, and why would I fly anyone else?

 

[KCFlyer]

Southwest is my last choice primarily because they don't fly to GSP, AVL, CLT, CAE, FLO, ATL, MSP, DEN, LGA, JFK, EWR or DFW.

If Southwest really does have better legroom than DL, US, CO and NW, I don't think I would mind flying Southwest. Add seat assignments, and why would I fly anyone else?

It's doubful that a smaller jet would offer you the same legroom as even their "smallest" 737.

 

[Farley]

If you read up on the EMB-190, you'll see that can be outfitted to offer more legroom and more width per seat than the average seat in a 737.

 

[KCFlyer]

If you read up on the EMB-190, you'll see that can be outfitted to offer more legroom and more width per seat than the average seat in a 737.

I still think it would be a mistake for Southwest to begin "mixing" their fleet. For much of the same reasons that I think it's a mistake for Jetblue to be doing it.

 

[wrx]

I still think it would be a mistake for Southwest to begin "mixing" their fleet. For much of the same reasons that I think it's a mistake for Jetblue to be doing it.

If you were the CEO of SWA or JB, then you could make the decision. But, it's all about profit and if the EMB-190 is what will make it happen, the they will do it.

 

[Ch. 12]

If you read up on the EMB-190, you'll see that can be outfitted to offer more legroom and more width per seat than the average seat in a 737.

We also saw that Legend could retrofit a DC-9 to only 56 seats but that obviously isn't the answer.

 

[Farley]

Actually for us at Jetblue it is the answer. 56 seats may be a little silly, but with 100 seats the EMB-190 will be roomier than a 737 in coach configuration.

 

[Ch. 12]

Actually for us at Jetblue it is the answer. 56 seats may be a little silly, but with 100 seats the EMB-190 will be roomier than a 737 in coach configuration.

@ 100 seats the picth on the EMB-190 will be ~31" pitch which is the same as an average 73 (~30-32"). Looks like even with fewer seats, passengers probably won't notice any difference...just no middle seats (which is probably the best thing about the 190). THAT will be a major improvement.

I'd still find it very interesting if WN went beyond the Boeing family. At that point it seems as though they have forgotten about their "low cost" foundation.

 

[JS]

100 seats isn't that much less than the 122 seats on the 737-200 and -500. I don't believe the additional cost of operating a second fleet type is worth carrying around just 22 fewer seats.

With the elimination of having to stand in line and check in again for a connecting flight, WN can add new cities using smaller aircraft, without having to add a large number of routes -- change planes in the nearest big WN station. Same as the other airlines but with a much larger number of hubs rather than two or three massive hubs.

30 to 50 seat turboprops could connect just about any airport in the US to an existing WN station, where one can connect to a 737. You won't need to fly RJ's long distances (something most passengers hate), because the sum of O&D and connection traffic will be enough to fill a 737 on routes that today can barely exist (like my repetitive JAX-JAN example).

 

[mga707]

Here's a wild thought: How 'bout a "New Generation" 737 series with the original, stubby 737-100 fuselage? HP had a few old -100s (originally built for MSA and Avianca) that were configured 107Y back in the '80s , so with WN's roomier pitch it would probably work out to be just about 100 seats.
Maybe Boeing would bite if an airline like WN showed enough interest. It would give them a smaller plane without adding a totally new fleet type.
The "737-550", anyone? B)

 

[JS]

Here's a wild thought: How 'bout a "New Generation" 737 series with the original, stubby 737-100 fuselage? HP had a few old -100s (originally built for MSA and Avianca) that were configured 107Y back in the '80s , so with WN's roomier pitch it would probably work out to be just about 100 seats.
Maybe Boeing would bite if an airline like WN showed enough interest. It would give them a smaller plane without adding a totally new fleet type.
The "737-550", anyone? B)

In general, stubby planes burn more fuel per seat. Air friction is primarily at the front of the plane (width), not along the sides (length).

That's one reason the 757 has very low fuel costs. It's REALLY long considering its width.

I still say turboprops are the way to go.

 

[Ch. 12]

I still say turboprops are the way to go.

I sincerely hope that WN is smart enough to stay away from turboprops. There is an inherent negativity among the general public in regards to props and to go against the public will is not the WN way. There is no good way to market a turboprop. Props would be good if WN decided to fly to LNK or smaller but are of little use to a LCC that still wants to serve respectable markets. BUT, if they do wish to serve more of the mid-sized markets with high frequency, there are small enough RJs.

Personally, I hope that WN stays away from smaller a/c. Since Kelleher has left, WN seems to have lost some of its focus on its longtime successful business plan. I think that it is important that WN stay competetive, but that does not mean that they are going about it right. WN is slowly looking to match other carriers in terms of inflight entertainment, commuter feed, and now disgruntled labor. It is because the vision is fading that labor is becoming restless. Bring back the old WN spirit...not turboprops.

OK...that's my tirade for the day. Sorry if some of it went a little off topic.