jimntx said:
AA's 737-800 configuration is F16/Y126. Only 3 FA's mandated as the total pax load is under 150.
Southwest/ata Rumors
- Thread starter wwtraveler99
- Start date
AA's 737-800 configuration is F16/Y126. Only 3 FA's mandated as the total pax load is under 150.
Isn't that a recent reconfiguration, though? I know that when I was flying before the layoff, all 737 lines were bid 4 because the 20 seats in f/c called for a 4th flight attendant according to AA service standards and contractual requirements.
The total seats count was still FAA-minimum of 3, but the lines always had 4 flight attendants on them.
My point was though that an 800 with only 149 coach seats is going to have a lot of wasted space. The ATA a/c that I traveled on had 179(?) seats and did not seem particularly cramped.
The total seats count was still FAA-minimum of 3, but the lines always had 4 flight attendants on them.
My point was though that an 800 with only 149 coach seats is going to have a lot of wasted space. The ATA a/c that I traveled on had 179(?) seats and did not seem particularly cramped.
jimntx said:
Yes, I do believe that the current AA -800 configuration is fairly recent. I remember that when they were first introduced they drew lots of complaints for their cramped coach cabin, then they were reconfigured for the MRTC program. I think that within the past couple of years they tweaked it again, adding a few more coach seats while taking out a few FC, but keeping the more spacious MRTC pitch in Y.
ATA's all-Y class -800s cram in 175.
Just for comparison, the -800 configurations at CO and DL are F14/Y141 and F16/Y138, respectively.
mga707 said:
The former Delta Shuttle -800's are also still flying around in all-coach configurations with 153 seats. The seat pitch is pretty generous at 35-37 inches (I've been on them and they're pretty comfy). ATA's pitch on the 737-800's with 175 seats is 31-32", so a hypothetical WN -800 would probably seat 160-165.
I don't think you'd see -800's on too many short-haul routes given the increase in turn times needed (and the desire for frequency on short flights), but they certainly would make sense on dense medium- and long-hauls. The key would be scheduling the aircraft and crew efficiently, of course. I do think they'd be useful in PHX, LAS, MDW, BWI, HOU, LAX, OAK, and PHL.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
The flight attendant staffing and aircraft swap issues are getting blown out of proportion here. All of the legacy airlines have operated multiple fleet types with different seat capacities for years. While it is fashionable to not give the legacies credit for doing anything right, the reality is that they have multiple fleet types because it makes economic sense – 1 size aircraft doesn’t fit all mission types. Those airlines find ways to deal with the added complexity. The problem is not that they can’t find solutions to the complexity of operating multiple fleet types, but that they have accepted NO solution as acceptable – and it no longer is. You can bet that any airline looking at a new fleet type is doing the same type of analysis that WN will do in evaluating whether adding the -800 makes sense.
Acquiring the -800, if it happens, will be driven by economics and no one is better at evaluating opportunities solely on the basis of economics than Southwest. If acquiring those aircraft provides an opportunity for WN to expand in Chicago, taking on the -800s will be a small price to way. WN is growing in bigger cities and in transcon markets where there is a demand for bigger aircraft; the -800 probably makes a lot of sense. And WN has bought used aircraft in the past so this wouldn’t be that much different.
These next two years, if even that long, will probably foresee the shakeout of the legacy airline industry and challenges by a host of new low cost carriers. In order for Southwest to remain a powerhouse in the industry, it must be willing to take strategic steps that are not defined by the way WN has done business in the past but by what will get them to where they need to be 5, 10, and more years in the future.
Acquiring the -800, if it happens, will be driven by economics and no one is better at evaluating opportunities solely on the basis of economics than Southwest. If acquiring those aircraft provides an opportunity for WN to expand in Chicago, taking on the -800s will be a small price to way. WN is growing in bigger cities and in transcon markets where there is a demand for bigger aircraft; the -800 probably makes a lot of sense. And WN has bought used aircraft in the past so this wouldn’t be that much different.
These next two years, if even that long, will probably foresee the shakeout of the legacy airline industry and challenges by a host of new low cost carriers. In order for Southwest to remain a powerhouse in the industry, it must be willing to take strategic steps that are not defined by the way WN has done business in the past but by what will get them to where they need to be 5, 10, and more years in the future.
Oh well, I guess we will just have to wait and see. It would be nice to have an extra lavs and a little more galley space on transcons...maybe they could leave TZ's IFE onboard. A 4th stew, extra potties and Inflight Movies...now you got yourself a party.
JS
Veteran
A couple more advantages that I can think of (but am not sure if they are true) -- is the 737-800 less weight restricted in the summer at MDW than the -700? Can the -800 fly ISP-LAX or ISP-OAK?
Regarding the complexity of flight attendant staffing, this is why I suggested starting off with either DAL-HOU or LAX-BWI, where the 4th flight attendant won't be going anywhere else anyway. So a flight attendant deadheads from HOU back to DAL every once in a while, big deal. Or with LAX-BWI, obviously the 4th is done with a trip for the day.
The point about the aircraft not being as easily replaceable for a broken -700 is true, although if it's flying to places such as DAL, HOU, LAX and BWI, surely there is a 4th flight attendant nearby who can be called in.
Regarding the complexity of flight attendant staffing, this is why I suggested starting off with either DAL-HOU or LAX-BWI, where the 4th flight attendant won't be going anywhere else anyway. So a flight attendant deadheads from HOU back to DAL every once in a while, big deal. Or with LAX-BWI, obviously the 4th is done with a trip for the day.
The point about the aircraft not being as easily replaceable for a broken -700 is true, although if it's flying to places such as DAL, HOU, LAX and BWI, surely there is a 4th flight attendant nearby who can be called in.
JS said:
Somebody earlier in the topic said that the range of an -800 is slightly less than a -700. Transcons are do-able on both. I suspect the issue with ISP is field performance on shorter runways (similar to MDW).
My question is engine compatability. Does ATA have the same (or similar) engines to LUV? This would be a big factor in compatability of the aircraft for LUV.
Added later:
ATA uses CFM's (CFM 56-7 B27/B1 to be exact) per their website...
No engine type listed on Southwest's website... Anyone know what engines Southwest hangs on their -700's?
Because of the lack of gate space in the near term, all these -800s will be going to PHL. And they will have a fourth Flight Attendant. The Crew Sodomizer already has this figured out. Irregular ops will be a be-otch, however.
So, in only six days we have gone from a rumor to a foregone conclusion with even the basing of the a/c. Perhaps tomorrow we'll find out the names of the crews assigned to fly these a/c.
This has got to be a new record even for USAviation.com.
This has got to be a new record even for USAviation.com.
Hehe... good one jimntx...
And here is food for thought... Per their website, Ryanair flies -800's with 189 seats... Wow.
I am surprised nobody here knows the engine type on LUV's -700's...
And here is food for thought... Per their website, Ryanair flies -800's with 189 seats... Wow.
I am surprised nobody here knows the engine type on LUV's -700's...
189 seats!
According to AA's website, our 800's seat 142 passengers--16 in F/C. Our 757s seat either 180 or 188 in our new LRTC config for the 757s. And, that plane is 26 feet longer than an 800.
According to AA's website, our 800's seat 142 passengers--16 in F/C. Our 757s seat either 180 or 188 in our new LRTC config for the 757s. And, that plane is 26 feet longer than an 800.
ngneer
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 244
- 0
I believe the engines on SWA's -700s were recently upgraded to 24,200 lb. thrust and so would be engine type CFM56-7B24B1.
The -700s with winglets can fly ISP-LAX non-stop but ATA's -800s couldn't, at least not fully loaded. The -800 with winglets and 7B27 engines requires well over 7,000 feet of runway under worst case take-off conditions. The -700 with winglets and 7B24B1 engines needs just over 6,000 feet of runway under the same conditions.
You can download charts showing take-off performance and various other parameters of Boeing aircraft from the Boeing website.
The -700s with winglets can fly ISP-LAX non-stop but ATA's -800s couldn't, at least not fully loaded. The -800 with winglets and 7B27 engines requires well over 7,000 feet of runway under worst case take-off conditions. The -700 with winglets and 7B24B1 engines needs just over 6,000 feet of runway under the same conditions.
You can download charts showing take-off performance and various other parameters of Boeing aircraft from the Boeing website.
Similar threads
