Southwest/ata Rumors

[wwtraveler99]

I have heard rumors of WN aquiring all of ATA's 737-800's. Has anyone heard about this. Has there been actual talks between the two? Any concrete info out there? Does anyone know how many -800 ATA has?

Also I have heard WN is looking at DFW. What do you think?

I my opinion I don't think I like it too much. But WN has not made too many bad city choices in the past.

 

[BaronManfred]

It may be too good of a deal to pass up, dominating Chicago like they do Baltimore and soon will Philly. Taking over 33 or so 737-800s would be a reasonable price to pay for a virtual monopoly at MDW. It would signal a change in strategy for SW, dominating bigger markets and morphing them into something resembling hubs. Who will be next?

Going into DFW would be the height of arrogance, kicking AA while they are down but, hey, they're doing it to US in Philly. Being a predator has not been SW's image but they are doing it to those who invented the game.

 

[ramper_in_las]

It may be too good of a deal to pass up, dominating Chicago like they do Baltimore and soon will Philly. Taking over 33 or so 737-800s would be a reasonable price to pay for a virtual monopoly at MDW. It would signal a change in strategy for SW, dominating bigger markets and morphing them into something resembling hubs. Who will be next?

Going into DFW would be the height of arrogance, kicking AA while they are down but, hey, they're doing it to US in Philly. Being a predator has not been SW's image but they are doing it to those who invented the game.

[post="186378"][/post]​

the only problem i see with the 737-800's aquisition, it would require a fourth flight attendant which does not fit into WN's scheme of business. So if i were to assume anything it would be a big NO. but you guys know what assuming does.

 

[SWAFA30]

the only problem i see with the 737-800's aquisition, it would require a fourth flight attendant which does not fit into WN's scheme of business. So if i were to assume anything it would be a big NO. but you guys know what assuming does.

[post="186427"][/post]​

As they are currently configured, TZ's 738's are indeed "too big" for us meaning a 4th Flight Attendant would be required. However, the problem could be solved by simply reconfiguring the aircraft to seat 149 passengers.

 

[ramper_in_las]

As they are currently configured, TZ's 738's are indeed "too big" for us meaning a 4th Flight Attendant would be required. However, the problem could be solved by simply reconfiguring the aircraft to seat 149 passengers.

[post="186444"][/post]​

seems to me there would be allot of wasted space if you were to take out approx. 30 seats but as they say if the price is right.....

 

[JS]

This isn't that hard...

Fly the 737-800 on the DAL-HOU route. Cut out a flight here and there to keep the total supply the same. Obviously the fourth flight attendant would simply fly DAL-HOU and back while the other three might continue to other destinations just like they do now.

Or, maybe this one is even better -- fly the 737-800 on really long routes such as LAX-BWI. The fourth flight attendant flies LAX-BWI and back.

Fleet simplification is good but as they say, everything in moderation. Don't throw away an opportunity just because you have to deal with the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 instead of the usual 1, 2 and 3.

 

[jimntx]

This isn't that hard...

Fly the 737-800 on the DAL-HOU route. Cut out a flight here and there to keep the total supply the same. Obviously the fourth flight attendant would simply fly DAL-HOU and back while the other three might continue to other destinations just like they do now.

In other words, create at WN the scheduling "problem" that AA and other airlines call VM (variable manning) or similar term where you add an additional flight attendant when loads go over a certain number and the flight is of a certain stage length. This idea goes against one of the basic tenets of the WN business plan--KISS.

Or, maybe this one is even better -- fly the 737-800 on really long routes such as LAX-BWI. The fourth flight attendant flies LAX-BWI and back.

Fleet simplification is good but as they say, everything in moderation. Don't throw away an opportunity just because you have to deal with the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 instead of the usual 1, 2 and 3.

[post="187421"][/post]​

LAX-BWI "turns" for the 4th f/a can't be done under WN's current or new contract. The f/a's have a maximum scheduled duty day of 10 hours. Even with WN's fast turnarounds, you can't check-in 1 hour prior to departure, fly to the West Coast, unload, load, and fly back to BWI in less than 10 hours. You would have to have a different "4th f/a" to work the return flight.

Seems like an awful lot of new and unnecessary work and complexity just to purchase a used a/c in a model that WN has never seen the need for before now. :huh:

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

In other words, create at WN the scheduling "problem" that AA and other airlines call VM (variable manning) or similar term where you add an additional flight attendant when loads go over a certain number and the flight is of a certain stage length. This idea goes against one of the basic tenets of the WN business plan--KISS.
LAX-BWI "turns" for the 4th f/a can't be done under WN's current or new contract. The f/a's have a maximum scheduled duty day of 10 hours. Even with WN's fast turnarounds, you can't check-in 1 hour prior to departure, fly to the West Coast, unload, load, and fly back to BWI in less than 10 hours. You would have to have a different "4th f/a" to work the return flight.

Seems like an awful lot of new and unnecessary work and complexity just to purchase a used a/c in a model that WN has never seen the need for before now. :huh:

[post="187444"][/post]​

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not so sure it's a "bad" idea, for WN, to acquire the "larger" a/c, in this instance.

My guess is, would it cause a $$$ problem for maintainence, or the pilots(same flight deck etc. ?)

And as you correctly stated, there are numerous "tricks" that WN could play with the f/a manning !!

NH/BB's

 

[KCFlyer]

In other words, create at WN the scheduling "problem" that AA and other airlines call VM (variable manning) or similar term where you add an additional flight attendant when loads go over a certain number and the flight is of a certain stage length. This idea goes against one of the basic tenets of the WN business plan--KISS.

[post="187444"][/post]​

Help me out here...I thought that the FAA required a certain number of FA's on a flight, based on the number of seats on the aircraft...whether those seats were filled or not.

 

[jimntx]

Precisely. However, VM positions are over and above FAA minimums. Putting an additional f/a on certain flights is contractual between the company and the union. For instance, an MD-80 has an FAA minimum crew of 3 f/as. If you are doing a DFW-SAT, DFW-AUS, or DFW-IAH with a full load, an additional f/a (VM) may be added to the cabin crew because you have about 20-25 usable minutes to do the service and get picked up between the time you can safely get up from the jumpseat and the "prepare for landing" at which time the f/as have to sit back down.

But, then the minimum crew may go on somewhere else and the VM sits in the outstation airport until a "full load" flight is going back to DFW or the VM deadheads back to DFW or lays over in the outstation city.

 

[jimntx]

One other thought...

If WN wanted 737-800s, I would imagine that they would just as soon buy new ones as buy used ones that may or may not have the same engines, cockpit, etc, and have to repaint them on the outside and redo the interior livery.

 

[SWAFA30]

From a F/A standpoint, if we start as a -800 4 person crew, we would need to fly the entire trip as such. If we were to work the first day of the trip on an -800, then the second on a -700, we would spend the entire day with an extra crewmember doing one of two things, either deadheading or trying to work their way into a 3 person service, either of which is inefficient which is the SWA equivalent of the "F" word. Even after the -200s are gone, we have so many of the -300/-700 variant aircraft that even 40 -800s would be a white elephant. A -700 breaks at an outstation and dispatch is looking for a jet to do a swap...an -800 is all that is available. The -700 cabin crew is now a person short. Theoretically, you take the "extra" stew from the inbound -800 and off you go. Except, we have to assume that said -800 was deployed on a route where the seats were needed...now they are not available. Once MX gets the broken -700 fixed, it could in turn operate the swapped -800s segement except you're now about 40 seats short and Customer Service now has a massive oversale on their hands. I don't know, just seems to me it would be constantly trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Also, are the -800s TZ operates theirs to sell? Not trying to flame anyone, just curious.

 

[jimntx]

From a F/A standpoint, if we start as a -800 4 person crew, we would need to fly the entire trip as such. If we were to work the first day of the trip on an -800, then the second on a -700, we would spend the entire day with an extra crewmember doing one of two things, either deadheading or trying to work their way into a 3 person service, either of which is inefficient which is the SWA equivalent of the "F" word.

[post="187575"][/post]​

Exactly my point from a WN standpoint. Flight attendant crews are scheduled together. Though there is a way to do this, it doesn't fit with the way things are done at WN.

I may be wrong but IIRC an a/c and a crew stay together the whole day at WN--barrring MTC problems, etc. At AA where VM positions are used, this is not true. But, as an example, what WN would have to do is...
1. Day's schedule for base crew (3 f/as): work DAL-HOU on an 800 with 4th flight attendant.
2. At HOU, base crew moves to a smaller a/c and continues on HOU-PHX.
3. 4th F/A works back to DAL on the 800 with a different crew.

Another option would be for crews of 4 f/as to work DAL-HOU, HOU-DAL, DAL-HOU, etc. all day long. If you send that 800 too far afield, you run into the possibility of the scenario where a smaller a/c breaks and the only substitute is the 800, or vice versa.

By the way, we have written service procedures for 3 person and 4 person crews on same a/c to account for the times that there is a VM on board.

 

[markkus757]

As long as WN:

A) flew the -800's between crew base cities
or
B) did the 149 seat aircraft configuration

it could be a great way to grab some aircraft/market share. The -800's have the same engines and cockpit (for the most part) than the -700's (and -600's for that matter). It wouldn't be like getting a whole differant aircraft. The -300's have less commonality to the -700's than the -800's probably would...

 

[jimntx]

As long as WN:

A) flew the -800's between crew base cities
or
B) did the 149 seat aircraft configuration

[post="187675"][/post]​

Restriction A is the kind of scheduling restriction that WN has beautifully avoided. They like the "any a/c anywhere it's needed" approach.

If B, why bother? I don't think 149 seats would increase the load enough to make the a/c that much different from a/c they already have. And again, if you are going to have that much empty floor space on the a/c, why not go whole hog and put in a F/C cabin? Taking out 30+ seats from that plane (and I have flown on an ATA -800) would create a lot of empty space.

IIRC, AA's 800s seat 114 or 115 in coach with MRTC and they still have room for a 20 seat F/C cabin. (Somebody may have to correct me on this. We didn't get the 737 at DFW until the month before I was furloughed.)