A long time ago, a bunch of people said WN wouldn't get the 738 and look what happened. I'm wondering......... would WN get the 739 or even the MAX 10? Or is that way too much for an all-economy carrier?

I don't see why they couldn't use the raw capacity of the -10 on their core routes, like between the likes of MDW/PHX/DAL/HOU/LAS/BWI/LAX/OAK/etc.

Whether they can make the labor economics work though, is perhaps a different story.

The 739 has some runway issues that would preclude operations at many of WN's stations. Wouldn't be very flexible and is probably a non-starter for them.

OzarkD9S wrote:

The 739 has some runway issues that would preclude operations at many of WN's stations. Wouldn't be very flexible and is probably a non-starter for them.

Can you please expand those "issues" and other needing more length, what might those be?

Considering the fleet size and destinations, there are only a few where the 737-10MAX or 737-9MAX would not work perfectly, but it would still give them the most efficient single aisle plane on the market in the form of the 73-10MAX.

The main issue for them would be additional flight attendants. For some reason, southwest prefers to “keep it simple” in this area. They would have no trouble with filling many -10 max but the staffing (and ensuing boarding group changes I guess) might be a real drawback.

It's an interesting question.And one that is far wider than WN.They were first and they wrote the handbook.Not just one type of aircraft but only one version.For the lowest possible running costs.Ryanair followed it to the letter and it didn't do them much harm either!.But things have and are changing-fast.These companies are victims of their own success.
Massive growth and naturally new competitors.
WN have already moved up one size.Ryan have gone for the '200' version.But interestingly they have openly stated their interest in the '10'.Easyjet have stated their interest in the A321.Others are already using it and state they can still do a 30min turnaround with 240 pax.
There is no reason to see a slowdown in pax growth in the LCC area so perhaps it's more of a When rather than if.

texl1649 wrote:

The main issue for them would be additional flight attendants. For some reason, southwest prefers to “keep it simple” in this area. They would have no trouble with filling many -10 max but the staffing (and ensuing boarding group changes I guess) might be a real drawback.

This is fine. The real airlines will be happy to take the business.

It would be great to see more orders for the MAX 9 but if they went for a larger variant they'd choose the MAX 10. Unless they wanna order both to REALLY streamline the fleet.

Well all the speculation is the Boeing 797 is basically going to be the 757MAX.
While the 737-MAX10 sounds possible.
If it's WN intent to be the worlds most flown and Luved airline maybe WN will eventually need a bigger plane.
The 797 should fill the gap between the 737 and the 787. This might fit WN perfectly.
Given this is GK Southwest so anything possible.
The economics for the 787 like WestJet would also work for WN.
I'm thinking being a launch customer might sweeten the deal for WN and the 797.

But if they just choose the 737-MAX10 it will probably be another 10 yrs from now.

They still have to make Hawaii work and it's already 7 yrs behind schedule.

Flyguy

KICT wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

The main issue for them would be additional flight attendants. For some reason, southwest prefers to “keep it simple” in this area. They would have no trouble with filling many -10 max but the staffing (and ensuing boarding group changes I guess) might be a real drawback.

This is fine. The real airlines will be happy to take the business.

Lol I’m not sure I’d say they aren’t a real airline but I’d agree that the other airlines can just take the business. I really don’t understand America’s fascination with WN...they have a bad hard product and a soft product that’s fair at best for little less than the competitors.

Anyway back on topic. I think MDW is the big limiting factor here. As stated above the 739 is a runway hog and is therefore unlikely to be effective for any reasonably long or full flights out of MDW. Maybe if the MAX10 has better runway performance it could join the fleet but I don’t see WN getting a larger 737 variant in the near future. Although, aviation has taught me to never say never...

kabq737 wrote:

KICT wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

The main issue for them would be additional flight attendants. For some reason, southwest prefers to “keep it simple” in this area. They would have no trouble with filling many -10 max but the staffing (and ensuing boarding group changes I guess) might be a real drawback.

This is fine. The real airlines will be happy to take the business.

Lol I’m not sure I’d say they aren’t a real airline but I’d agree that the other airlines can just take the business. I really don’t understand America’s fascination with WN...they have a bad hard product and a soft product that’s fair at best for little less than the competitors.

Anyway back on topic. I think MDW is the big limiting factor here. As stated above the 739 is a runway hog and is therefore unlikely to be effective for any reasonably long or full flights out of MDW. Maybe if the MAX10 has better runway performance it could join the fleet but I don’t see WN getting a larger 737 variant in the near future. Although, aviation has taught me to never say never...

Really? I am not a WN fanboy, I knock them for a bunch of things, but they offer a much better product to the general consumer than DL, UA, and AA do. For $95, I can fly with two bags, get a small drink & package of peanuts thrown at me, nice/funny FA's, and a decently comfortable seat. On AA, DL, and UA, even if I skip their horrid "basic economy" offering, I still have to pay for my bag, seat in the back of the plane/middle unless I pay up, no legroom, no power/free TV on many aircraft, and "We're only here for your safety" announcements every 5 minutes. That's not even mentioning the inter-Texas/California/Florida flights that WN offers full beverage service on, or at least water/peanuts shoved at everyone. I've been on 1.5 hour Delta flights where the FA's couldn't even finish serving economy in clear weather because they were moving at snail's pace.

Super80Fan wrote:

/quote]Really? I am not a WN fanboy, I knock them for a bunch of things, but they offer a much better product to the general consumer than DL, UA, and AA do. For $95, I can fly with two bags, get a small drink & package of peanuts thrown at me, nice/funny FA's, and a decently comfortable seat. On AA, DL, and UA, even if I skip their horrid "basic economy" offering, I still have to pay for my bag, seat in the back of the plane/middle unless I pay up, no legroom, no power/free TV on many aircraft, and "We're only here for your safety" announcements every 5 minutes. That's not even mentioning the inter-Texas/California/Florida flights that WN offers full beverage service on, or at least water/peanuts shoved at everyone. I've been on 1.5 hour Delta flights where the FA's couldn't even finish serving economy in clear weather because they were moving at snail's pace.

WN would never get a larger variant of the 737 do to runway issues at MDW, SNA, and BUR. As far as the service items you bring up, WN is the only airline that tickets are priced one-way which allows for open jaw itineraries etc. WN also has no change fees etc. and if you happen to change a flight during a fare sale they refund the difference in either your FF points or credit.

I would be shocked if WN hasn't already run the financials and performance numbers on the larger aircraft to determine if they'd be a good fit in the fleet. And, even if the numbers work out, WN has never really been one to dive right-in... Look at how long it took them to go after the -800's, go international, go to Hawaii, etc...

Do they have anything in their labor contracts which would prevent them from going to the larger aircraft?

One thing is for sure, gone are the days of the 20 minute turn. I was at the gate when my flight pulled in, a 738, and it took 40 minutes to get everyone off the thing.
Not taking a larger plane because of runway issues is simple - don't fly the plane to those airports. Stick them to Vegas, Orlando, Tampa, and Los Angeles turns for all we care.

Frenchify wrote:

One thing is for sure, gone are the days of the 20 minute turn. I was at the gate when my flight pulled in, a 738, and it took 40 minutes to get everyone off the thing.
Not taking a larger plane because of runway issues is simple - don't fly the plane to those airports. Stick them to Vegas, Orlando, Tampa, and Los Angeles turns for all we care.

This is exactly why Southwest is bottom of the major airlines in on-time performance month after month. They have not adapted their operations to larger planes and more connections.

Southwest could put 200 seats in a 737 MAX 9, which would require the same number of flight attendants as their 738.

Said before, will say again...while I won't be surprised to see a MAX -9 or -10 on the property at some point, I think we're going to see a different, larger type sooner than later.

flyguy84 wrote:

Frenchify wrote:

One thing is for sure, gone are the days of the 20 minute turn. I was at the gate when my flight pulled in, a 738, and it took 40 minutes to get everyone off the thing.
Not taking a larger plane because of runway issues is simple - don't fly the plane to those airports. Stick them to Vegas, Orlando, Tampa, and Los Angeles turns for all we care.

This is exactly why Southwest is bottom of the major airlines in on-time performance month after month. They have not adapted their operations to larger planes and more connections.

I have definitely seen this myself. A 738 came in from Kansas City and it, too, took about 40 minutes to get everyone off. I've also seen a lot of crew swapping at other airports such as Indianapolis and even Hartford, which seemed odd to me, rather than having the same flight crew continue with the same plane to another city or back to a base.

Speaking of larger planes, my most frequent trips on Southwest are between LaGuardia and Chicago, and I'm always surprised they don't fly 738's in the constant stream back and forth. I can't remember a trip in the past few years where they haven't been asking for volunteers to take a different route or change their plans because of oversells. I'm sure they have their reasons, but just always seems surprising to me. It could be the 738 is simply making more money headed to Seattle, or wherever.

Hey, they have their reasons for why they do these things, but as someone mentioned above, I think I've only been on one flight where Southwest didn't do a beverage service because of turbulence concerns. I've been on plenty of United, Delta, and American Express/Connection/Eagle flights where they didn't even bother in conditions where you could have launched a space shuttle, but yet, they had "weather concerns and had to monitor our safety." Spare me.

Somewhere in the archives here at Anet there is a post that stated Herb was disappointed he did not order the 757. Can you imagine what could have been?

kabq737 wrote:

KICT wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

The main issue for them would be additional flight attendants. For some reason, southwest prefers to “keep it simple” in this area. They would have no trouble with filling many -10 max but the staffing (and ensuing boarding group changes I guess) might be a real drawback.

This is fine. The real airlines will be happy to take the business.

Lol I’m not sure I’d say they aren’t a real airline but I’d agree that the other airlines can just take the business. I really don’t understand America’s fascination with WN...they have a bad hard product and a soft product that’s fair at best for little less than the competitors.

Anyway back on topic. I think MDW is the big limiting factor here. As stated above the 739 is a runway hog and is therefore unlikely to be effective for any reasonably long or full flights out of MDW. Maybe if the MAX10 has better runway performance it could join the fleet but I don’t see WN getting a larger 737 variant in the near future. Although, aviation has taught me to never say never...

I believe there is documented internal discussion of WN talking long term the 7310 being more attractive for them vs the 739.
What is with all the talk on this thread referring to WN and their operation as trivial. Largest 737 operator in the world. Largest domestic airline in America. Longest streak of profitability. They must be doing something right.

As others have pointed out, many of the arguments why they would never go above the 73G are being used for larger than 738. In due time I think it is feasible they will take the larger 737s. UA/AS/DL are all operating these on transcons, and WN will gravitate to larger planes for their larger routes.

rj777 wrote:

would WN get the 739 or even the MAX 10?

We can only guess. My guess would be no. They have the 737-700, 737-800 and the 737MAX. I believe they will feel that they have the capacity with what they have to handle all their routes. The rest of the members here can discuss which aircraft mentioned above would be the best choice for any future Hawaii considerations.

freakyrat wrote:

WN would never get a larger variant of the 737 do to runway issues at MDW, SNA, and BUR.

WN serves 90+ airports other than MDW, SNA and BUR, and has thousands of flights a day not to MDW, SNA or BUR. They're going to have to get a lot better at managing complexity, whether it's another fleet type or - gasp - having a fifth flight attendant on a plane.

Anything over 175 seats requires a new pilot contract.

SWA currently has a "good deal" with the pilots, less than the US3 on comparable equipment. I suspect they really don't want to renegotiate given the current pilot-demand environment.

Pilot Issues aside.... HOU, MDW, SNA takeoff distances aside.....

I can't see any reasons why WN wouldn't do 7MAX- 150pax 3 flight attendants, 8MAX- 175 4 flight attendants, 9MAX - 200 4 flight attendants, 10MAX - 225 5 flight attendants.

While WN could make good use of the larger 737s/797, I believe the more substantial (and potentially more lucrative) route is US expansion with smaller planes to smaller markets. Former cities served by WN (like Beaumont, Texas and Jackson, Mississippi) have shown some markets can't handle several 143-seat 737s. There is still a ton of opportunity in the US for WN to expand. The only thing is, they'd have to add a new fleet type, or convince Boeing to whip up some 737-600s, which won't happen.

freakyrat wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

/quote]Really? I am not a WN fanboy, I knock them for a bunch of things, but they offer a much better product to the general consumer than DL, UA, and AA do. For $95, I can fly with two bags, get a small drink & package of peanuts thrown at me, nice/funny FA's, and a decently comfortable seat. On AA, DL, and UA, even if I skip their horrid "basic economy" offering, I still have to pay for my bag, seat in the back of the plane/middle unless I pay up, no legroom, no power/free TV on many aircraft, and "We're only here for your safety" announcements every 5 minutes. That's not even mentioning the inter-Texas/California/Florida flights that WN offers full beverage service on, or at least water/peanuts shoved at everyone. I've been on 1.5 hour Delta flights where the FA's couldn't even finish serving economy in clear weather because they were moving at snail's pace.

WN would never get a larger variant of the 737 do to runway issues at MDW, SNA, and BUR. As far as the service items you bring up, WN is the only airline that tickets are priced one-way which allows for open jaw itineraries etc. WN also has no change fees etc. and if you happen to change a flight during a fare sale they refund the difference in either your FF points or credit.

Not true for one-way pricing. Alaska shows round trip selections as two one-way fares. And other airlines make it work using the "other" or "advanced" option although not as easy. And I believe WN doesn't have such a feature that lets you create an open jaw or multi-stop trip on one itinerary.

In the larger scheme, I agree, they provide much better overall service. Flights generally on time, employees always in a good mood and helpful, consistent passenger experience and seating flexibility. Sometimes a predictable experience is more important to consumers than inconsistent frills.

OzarkD9S wrote:

The 739 has some runway issues that would preclude operations at many of WN's stations. Wouldn't be very flexible and is probably a non-starter for them.

Plus it has COG issues when parked. The 7310 Max stretch should take care of the COG problems when loading and unloading. The 10 Max should have a little over 200 seats. It would be a great aircraft to fly west coast to Hawaii routes in addition to their busiest domestic routes.

Purely speculative: Wonder if they were to do a rear and forward boarding at some stations if that would expedite boarding times? I hadn't seen it done until I was flew Air NZ AKL-WLG and it maybe took 10 minutes to get a full flight boarded. I wonder if stations like BUR and SNA where the weather is friendlier if that would be something would help with turnarounds. The ability to actually take off from those places being a completely separate issue.

I think that fleet complexity is becoming more of an issue. When say a 7M9/10 goes on a mechanical and all that is left is a 7M7/8 you run into oversell and range issues. With these massive variance in capacity it might as well be an Airbus.

Super80Fan wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

KICT wrote:

This is fine. The real airlines will be happy to take the business.

Lol I’m not sure I’d say they aren’t a real airline but I’d agree that the other airlines can just take the business. I really don’t understand America’s fascination with WN...they have a bad hard product and a soft product that’s fair at best for little less than the competitors.

Anyway back on topic. I think MDW is the big limiting factor here. As stated above the 739 is a runway hog and is therefore unlikely to be effective for any reasonably long or full flights out of MDW. Maybe if the MAX10 has better runway performance it could join the fleet but I don’t see WN getting a larger 737 variant in the near future. Although, aviation has taught me to never say never...

Really? I am not a WN fanboy, I knock them for a bunch of things, but they offer a much better product to the general consumer than DL, UA, and AA do. For $95, I can fly with two bags, get a small drink & package of peanuts thrown at me, nice/funny FA's, and a decently comfortable seat. On AA, DL, and UA, even if I skip their horrid "basic economy" offering, I still have to pay for my bag, seat in the back of the plane/middle unless I pay up, no legroom, no power/free TV on many aircraft, and "We're only here for your safety" announcements every 5 minutes. That's not even mentioning the inter-Texas/California/Florida flights that WN offers full beverage service on, or at least water/peanuts shoved at everyone. I've been on 1.5 hour Delta flights where the FA's couldn't even finish serving economy in clear weather because they were moving at snail's pace.

I guess it’s just a matter of personal opinion. I’ve been flying WN, AA, and DL for years and I’ve always had a better experience on AA and DL. I also tend to carry on therefore, the checked bag policy doesn’t really matter to me. I can see how that would be a good selling point for many folks though as we all have different travel needs.

If WN ordered a MAX 9 or a B739ER, it would probably be Y200 with a 32” seat pitch (same as the B738). The issue isn’t so much staffing as turnaround times. WN wants to do 25 minutes.

I would hope they hold off till the 797 was launched. They could they expand Hawaii nonstops from beyond the west coast into Texas, SLC, Denver, Chicago, Nashville, Baltimore. Use them on transcon and heavy load routes to reduce frequencies to free up additional slots especially at Love. Could they get a gate at Love that could accommodate a 797?

LoftleidirDC8 wrote:

I think that fleet complexity is becoming more of an issue. When say a 7M9/10 goes on a mechanical and all that is left is a 7M7/8 you run into oversell and range issues. With these massive variance in capacity it might as well be an Airbus.

Not much different than a scenario where a 738 goes mechanical and the only available plane is a 73G. Or (when Southwest had 735s) a 73G going out of service and only a 735 is available.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

I would hope they hold off till the 797 was launched. They could they expand Hawaii nonstops from beyond the west coast into Texas, SLC, Denver, Chicago, Nashville, Baltimore. Use them on transcon and heavy load routes to reduce frequencies to free up additional slots especially at Love. Could they get a gate at Love that could accommodate a 797?

The gates at Dallas Love Field were designed to handle MD-82 and MD-83 planes, which are longer than Boeing 737 MAX 10 and Airbus A321 planes, even though AA had to give up its 2 gates at Dallas Love Field during the AA-US Airways merger. The gates at Dallas Love Field can certainly handle A321, A321neo, 737-900ER, 737 MAX 9, and 737 MAX 10 planes since all 5 of these models are shorter in length than the MD-82 and MD-83 planes (which have a smaller fuselage diameter than the A318, A319, A320, A321, and 737).

freakyrat wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

/quote]Really? I am not a WN fanboy, I knock them for a bunch of things, but they offer a much better product to the general consumer than DL, UA, and AA do. For $95, I can fly with two bags, get a small drink & package of peanuts thrown at me, nice/funny FA's, and a decently comfortable seat. On AA, DL, and UA, even if I skip their horrid "basic economy" offering, I still have to pay for my bag, seat in the back of the plane/middle unless I pay up, no legroom, no power/free TV on many aircraft, and "We're only here for your safety" announcements every 5 minutes. That's not even mentioning the inter-Texas/California/Florida flights that WN offers full beverage service on, or at least water/peanuts shoved at everyone. I've been on 1.5 hour Delta flights where the FA's couldn't even finish serving economy in clear weather because they were moving at snail's pace.

WN would never get a larger variant of the 737 do to runway issues at MDW, SNA, and BUR. As far as the service items you bring up, WN is the only airline that tickets are priced one-way which allows for open jaw itineraries etc. WN also has no change fees etc. and if you happen to change a flight during a fare sale they refund the difference in either your FF points or credit.

Whats wrong with a sub fleet of 737MAX10's for heavy routes? Having 3 models of the 727 would give them flexibility to better match demand and better utilize routes at slot controlled airports. I see the MAX9 or MAX10 in WN's future.

I have heard from some who should know that 797 is in WN’s future. Surprised me to hear it.

flyguy84 wrote:

Frenchify wrote:

One thing is for sure, gone are the days of the 20 minute turn. I was at the gate when my flight pulled in, a 738, and it took 40 minutes to get everyone off the thing.
Not taking a larger plane because of runway issues is simple - don't fly the plane to those airports. Stick them to Vegas, Orlando, Tampa, and Los Angeles turns for all we care.

This is exactly why Southwest is bottom of the major airlines in on-time performance month after month. They have not adapted their operations to larger planes and more connections.

July 2017

WN - 74.7% (4)
AA - 73.2% (5)
UA - 78.7% (2)
DL - 83.8% (1)
B6 - 62.5% (7)
NK - 72.6% (6)
VX - 75.6% (3)
F9 - 74.7% (4)

Source: https://www.transtats.bts.gov/ot_delay/ ... 1.asp?pn=1

usflyguy wrote:

flyguy84 wrote:

Frenchify wrote:

One thing is for sure, gone are the days of the 20 minute turn. I was at the gate when my flight pulled in, a 738, and it took 40 minutes to get everyone off the thing.
Not taking a larger plane because of runway issues is simple - don't fly the plane to those airports. Stick them to Vegas, Orlando, Tampa, and Los Angeles turns for all we care.

This is exactly why Southwest is bottom of the major airlines in on-time performance month after month. They have not adapted their operations to larger planes and more connections.

July 2017

WN - 74.7% (4)
AA - 73.2% (5)
UA - 78.7% (2)
DL - 83.8% (1)
B6 - 62.5% (7)
NK - 72.6% (6)
VX - 75.6% (3)
F9 - 74.7% (4)

Source: https://www.transtats.bts.gov/ot_delay/ ... 1.asp?pn=1

So you cherry picked a month they were 3 out of the 4, “big four.” They are consistently at the bottom of the pack. So far this month WN is running 56.3 D0. Ouch.

To say they should get the larger variants and only use them on their "core routes" already goes against the Southwest business model. I don't know if this model changed with the retirement of the -300 and the adding of the MAX8 but the aircraft get cycled throughout WN's network to where any aircraft could theoretically fly any route currently on the schedule. Limiting a subfleet of aircraft to a handful of routes is the perfect recipe for inefficiency and financial loss.

im1cody wrote:

Purely speculative: Wonder if they were to do a rear and forward boarding at some stations if that would expedite boarding times? I hadn't seen it done until I was flew Air NZ AKL-WLG and it maybe took 10 minutes to get a full flight boarded. I wonder if stations like BUR and SNA where the weather is friendlier if that would be something would help with turnarounds. The ability to actually take off from those places being a completely separate issue.

I recently flew WN through BUR, and they did use both forward and rear stairs ( no jetways at BUR) It mad the turn very quick.

im1cody wrote:

Purely speculative: Wonder if they were to do a rear and forward boarding at some stations if that would expedite boarding times? I hadn't seen it done until I was flew Air NZ AKL-WLG and it maybe took 10 minutes to get a full flight boarded. I wonder if stations like BUR and SNA where the weather is friendlier if that would be something would help with turnarounds. The ability to actually take off from those places being a completely separate issue.

I recently flew WN through BUR, and they did use both forward and rear stairs ( no jetways at BUR) It made the turn very quick.

I've seen them do dual-door boarding/deplaning at SMF and SJC. It's been a while since I've deplaned from the back of an aircraft parked at a jet bridge in the US. I'd imagine this was some sort of pilot project to see if it would improve turnaround times.

In reality people were so conditioned to only use the jetbridge boarding door that few people went backwards.

-IR

"Not true for one-way pricing. Alaska shows round trip selections as two one-way fares. And other airlines make it work using the "other" or "advanced" option although not as easy. And I believe WN doesn't have such a feature that lets you create an open jaw or multi-stop trip on one itinerary.

In the larger scheme, I agree, they provide much better overall service. Flights generally on time, employees always in a good mood and helpful, consistent passenger experience and seating flexibility. Sometimes a predictable experience is more important to consumers than inconsistent frills"

You have to do open-jaw over the phone with Res at WN and I did it a few weeks ago. Two of us are flying from MDW-LAS but returning from LAX-MDW. I changed my departure airport from LAS. You cannot do it on their website but you can on the phone with no fees plus I got a refund of FF points and my sister got a refund on her ticket as they were having a fare sale at the time. I was also able to change return dates on our return flight. I bought a separate ticket for our LAS-LAX flights.

parapente wrote:

It's an interesting question.And one that is far wider than WN.They were first and they wrote the handbook.Not just one type of aircraft but only one version.For the lowest possible running costs.Ryanair followed it to the letter and it didn't do them much harm either!.But things have and are changing-fast.These companies are victims of their own success.
Massive growth and naturally new competitors.
WN have already moved up one size.Ryan have gone for the '200' version.But interestingly they have openly stated their interest in the '10'.Easyjet have stated their interest in the A321.Others are already using it and state they can still do a 30min turnaround with 240 pax.
There is no reason to see a slowdown in pax growth in the LCC area so perhaps it's more of a When rather than if.

Times have changed There's no reason in the World WN shouldn't fly the Max 9 or the Max 10. And?? No reason why they shouldn't!!
I bet they will at or before United gets the models..

Is the 737-10max receiving a large enough thrust bump over the -9 to make takeoff at MDW, SNA, DAL and HOU possible? If not, would WN want a 737 it couldn't use from some of its busier stations?

I'm assuming they wouldn't need 100% full fuel loads on most route from those airports.

cschleic wrote:

Not true for one-way pricing. Alaska shows round trip selections as two one-way fares. And other airlines make it work using the "other" or "advanced" option although not as easy. And I believe WN doesn't have such a feature that lets you create an open jaw or multi-stop trip on one itinerary.

In the larger scheme, I agree, they provide much better overall service. Flights generally on time, employees always in a good mood and helpful, consistent passenger experience and seating flexibility. Sometimes a predictable experience is more important to consumers than inconsistent frills.

I've booked flights on WN from DEN to PIT with an overnight stopover at MCI in the past. It can be done where you can book a multi-stop trip, but only from Point A to Point B with a stop at Point C.

ILS28ORD wrote:

Is the 737-10max receiving a large enough thrust bump over the -9 to make takeoff at MDW, SNA, DAL and HOU possible? If not, would WN want a 737 it couldn't use from some of its busier stations?

I'm assuming they wouldn't need 100% full fuel loads on most route from those airports.

Thrust isn't the issue with the -9, it's the rotation angle and as of now the MAX 10 has modified landing gear to fix this issue. Don't know if it will be enough for MDW ops since details are scarce.

flyguy84 wrote:

usflyguy wrote:

flyguy84 wrote:

This is exactly why Southwest is bottom of the major airlines in on-time performance month after month. They have not adapted their operations to larger planes and more connections.

July 2017

WN - 74.7% (4)
AA - 73.2% (5)
UA - 78.7% (2)
DL - 83.8% (1)
B6 - 62.5% (7)
NK - 72.6% (6)
VX - 75.6% (3)
F9 - 74.7% (4)

Source: https://www.transtats.bts.gov/ot_delay/ ... 1.asp?pn=1

So you cherry picked a month they were 3 out of the 4, “big four.” They are consistently at the bottom of the pack. So far this month WN is running 56.3 D0. Ouch.

WN would most likely use the larger planes to fly the longer segments. So the delays would be less amplified. Regardless, they will get better as they get more familiar and adapt. They will do so sooner if they start losing business because of it. The market is in agreement, passengers choose based on price and schedule. They dont choose based on type of plane, PTVs, or ontime. As a WN flyer (certainly out of SFO) the delays can be painful, but until they have long term financial implication (less bookings) it is merely a data point.

My observations is WN has pulling back from the long transcon market. More 738s will allow them to operate more profitably, then over time 7310s for the longer SFO/OAK/LAX/SAN/LAS/PHX/SMF-Hawaii/NorthEast/Florida routes.

While WN dominates SNA,BUR they aren't going to determine a yes or no for operating a plane.

ikolkyo wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Is the 737-10max receiving a large enough thrust bump over the -9 to make takeoff at MDW, SNA, DAL and HOU possible? If not, would WN want a 737 it couldn't use from some of its busier stations?

I'm assuming they wouldn't need 100% full fuel loads on most route from those airports.

Thrust isn't the issue with the -9, it's the rotation angle and as of now the MAX 10 has modified landing gear to fix this issue. Don't know if it will be enough for MDW ops since details are scarce.

Doesn't the increased length of the plane negate the advantage the taller gear provides at least somewhat?