ADrum23 wrote:

barney captain wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I thought flights were only going on sale in 2018 and the first flights wouldn't even take off until early 2019.

I guess they are waiting for the MAX 8 to become ETOPS certified before starting. Couldn't they use the 738 right now if they wanted to start this year, since it is already ETOPS certified?

We are. The first 29 800's came ETOPS equipped, were are just waiting on the FAA approval. It will probably be awhile before the MAX goes TPAC.

Hold on, you stated WN is waiting for the MAX 8 to become ETOPS certified before starting Hawaii, yet, you also stated it will probably be a while before the MAX goes TPAC? Could you clarify?

You asked -

Couldn't they use the 738 right now if they wanted to start this year, since it is already ETOPS certified?

I replied -

We are.

usxguy wrote:

Well, this is a good move by Southwest, although not a popular one on this website.

HA is shuffling their transpac fleet between A321/B763/A330; AS and VX haven't yet started adding flights from SFO/LAX (which I suspect we'll see KOA and/or LIH from either or both); AS and HA have already done a lot of additions to the point-to-point and local traffic. There may not be much room left for Southwest. Maybe they're waiting to see everyone else's moves before announcing their own?

Little use in waiting to see what moves others make because the day WN announces their intentions, the incumbent carriers can just as easily make changes to their schedules. I have a sneaking suspicion that WN Leadership realises they may have waiting too long to pull the trigger on Hawaii.

77H

barney captain wrote:

ctrabs0114 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I thought flights were only going on sale in 2018 and the first flights wouldn't even take off until early 2019.

I guess they are waiting for the MAX 8 to become ETOPS certified before starting. Couldn't they use the 738 right now if they wanted to start this year, since it is already ETOPS certified?

I wonder if there's a difference between ETOPS certified for TPAC flights as opposed to TATL or flights to the Caribbean. Or if the 738 has enough range for LAX/SAN/OAK to HNL.

737-800's have been flying those routes for over a decade - so I don't understand your question about range. Yes, they can make it.

There is no TPAC or TATL ETOPS - just ETOPS.

That clarifies things a little bit. If WN's 738/3M8 fleets are ETOPS certified; I have to wonder if one of the holdups in starting service to Hawaii is labor/CBA related.

That clarifies things a little bit. If WN's 738/3M8 fleets are ETOPS certified; I have to wonder if one of the holdups in starting service to Hawaii is labor/CBA related.

We have 29 800's and (I think) two MAX's that have the ETOPS equipment - but that does not an ETOPS program make We submitted the program to the FAA for approval - that is (to my knowledge) all we're waiting on. Then the crews have to get trained and the biggie - tech ops. ETOPS is much more of a mx program than flight ops program. The pilots have the language in their contract for ETOPS - so no issue there. The Tech Ops folks have been almost 6 years without a contract - so that may be an issue, but it shouldn't slow down the approval process. Will it prevent them from starting service down the road? Dunno - hopefully they will get a contract before then.

EA CO AS wrote:

airliner371 wrote:

EA CO AS with the SPIN!

Hardly; this is something I've heard repeatedly from locals I know on multiple islands. Dismiss it if you wish, and understand that I'm not hoping for WN to fare poorly. I'm just saying they should probably get the show on the road as quickly as the government and safety parameters allow.

I dare say a lot of Hawaiians haven't flown WN before. Obviously they have heard of them, it is a well known brand. I think it's premature to assume them not beginning until next year will be detrimental.

With so many questions about the Boeing 737s and ETOPS, let me ask this: When Morris Air was in business in the late-80s and early-90s, what type of aircraft did Morris Air use to fly to Honolulu from the Mainland? It WAS Boeing 737s, wasn't it? It had to be, since Morris Air was a 737-only airline! And, since Morris Air was purchased by and merged into Southwest in the Fall of 1994, what happened to Morris's ETOPS authority post-merger? Did that expire when Southwest chose not to use it, or is that authority still dormant?

SkyVoice wrote:

With so many questions about the Boeing 737s and ETOPS, let me ask this: When Morris Air was in business in the late-80s and early-90s, what type of aircraft did Morris Air use to fly to Honolulu from the Mainland? It WAS Boeing 737s, wasn't it? It had to be, since Morris Air was a 737-only airline! And, since Morris Air was purchased by and merged into Southwest in the Fall of 1994, what happened to Morris's ETOPS authority post-merger? Did that expire when Southwest chose not to use it, or is that authority still dormant?

Morris Air flew 737-300's all around the western US and Alaska, but never operated to Hawaii - no way. The -300 would have nowhere near the range with any payload, hence, they never had ETOPS. Not mention the -300 was only certified for 120min ETOPS (as was the -200) - not enough for Hawaii.

What other questions are there about the 737 and ETOPS?

neomax wrote:

Southwest isn't even in Canada yet, how could they possibly be in Hawaii!?!

what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

ScottB wrote:

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

That's a good way of describing it. Every time you're on a US legacy carrier complaining about the dwindling legroom, how drinks and meals used to be free, how IFE options are garbage, etc., remember that WN started it. Every move down the drain that the real carriers have made in the last 25 years has been to keep up with the trailer-parkification of the industry started by WN.

Um, pretty much, no, except for the meals. WN's legroom has been superior to most of their competitors for two decades; if anything, the reconfiguration of the 73Gs to 143 seats was done to keep up with the race to the bottom at the legacy carriers. Two bags still fly for free for all customers at WN, unlike all their competitors. Alcoholic drinks stayed free on business-heavy routes like DAL-HOUThat IS a bi long after the competition started charging (and WN still gives its A-List members free beverage vouchers). Streaming TV is still free on WN, unlike some competitors. WN still chooses to not charge its customers change fees, either.

.

No change or cancellation fees is a big deal. Example: Two weeks ago I bought a ticket for DAL-DEN next Tuesday for what I thought was an excessive price, but it was about what I would have paid on UA or AA for DFW-DEN so I bought it. I checked yesterday, and WN had dropped the price by $100. I rebooked, and DID NOT pay a $200+ change fee, but I do have $100 that I can use for a future trip.

Things like two free bags, free IFE, and no change/cancellation fee will appeal to people flying to from Hawaii just as they do to fliers in the lower 48. There IS a reason
WN is the most flown airline in America.

I dare say a lot of Hawaiians haven't flown WN before. Obviously they have heard of them, it is a well known brand. I think it's premature to assume them not beginning until next year will be detrimental.

I'm going to disagree slightly here, but just to a degree. There is a very large Hawaiian/Polynesian population on the West Coast and they most definitely know Southwest and would fly them as a less expensive alternative. A number of native Hawaiians I know both in the islands and here on California actively want Southwest to expand, particularly for interisland services. Yes, there is a lot of local loyalty to Hawaiian Airlines, but Hawaiian's interisland price gouging is a huge bone of contention for locals and natives, and they will welcome the competition. If the prices were the same, they'd probably fly Hawaiian. If lower, certainly Southwest. In the end, they're consumers and the invisible hand applies to them as well as business.

You're completely right about not starting until 2019 not being bad for Southwest. Better to go slowly, plan properly and be successful out of the gate. It would also allow for more time for advertising, not to mention sorting out the gate and slot issues that others have spoken about.

Bob

jaybird wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Hardly; this is something I've heard repeatedly from locals I know on multiple islands. Dismiss it if you wish, and understand that I'm not hoping for WN to fare poorly. I'm just saying they should probably get the show on the road as quickly as the government and safety parameters allow.

To be blunt, WN doesn't care about the local Hawaiians for their feed. They will be taking people to Hawaii from the mainland and then back home.

Seriously? Any airline needs support at both ends of a route. They're going to need people who live in Hawaii to fill up their planes too. Ask any of the other airlines who already fly to/from Hawaii - Southwest is no different.

There are lots of routes that have asymmetrical origin loads. Do you think as many Mexicans fly CUN-USA as Americans fly USA-CUN?

SkyVoice wrote:

With so many questions about the Boeing 737s and ETOPS, let me ask this: When Morris Air was in business in the late-80s and early-90s, what type of aircraft did Morris Air use to fly to Honolulu from the Mainland? It WAS Boeing 737s, wasn't it? It had to be, since Morris Air was a 737-only airline! And, since Morris Air was purchased by and merged into Southwest in the Fall of 1994, what happened to Morris's ETOPS authority post-merger? Did that expire when Southwest chose not to use it, or is that authority still dormant?

Morris themselves did not operate to Hawaii. They used Charter carriers such as Total Air, and SkyService on the Hawaii ops, and after they received their own certificate, they stopped Hawaii ops, and concentrated on ops in Washington, California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Utah.

WN famously takes their time to do these sorts of things. Any number of a-netters had fits over how slow they were to combine after they bought ATA.

This is going to come down to price. Free bags set aside, as most people carry-on now, will WN price competively?

They may take their time on things, but looking at their history, they for the most part have avoided complete meltdowns of mergers and reservation system cutovers that other airlines went through. They have to get it right out of the gate with so much competition they'll be facing. I do believe that their bag policy, lack of change fees, 32" seat pitch on the -800s will be a continued selling point and they can probably do some things with the inflight service on these flights to make up for lack of other things.

flyguy84 wrote:

This is going to come down to price. Free bags set aside, as most people carry-on now, will WN price competively?

I disagree. Unless they already have family in Hawaii, most people don't go on vacation there with just carry-on. So unless they were elite on the carrier of travel, a family of four would have to pay $100 or more in baggage fees. I'm no Southwest fanboy, but all WN has to do is match the average fares and remind people of their free baggage.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

WN famously takes their time to do these sorts of things. Any number of a-netters had fits over how slow they were to combine after they bought ATA.

Actually, WN didn't buy ATA. It bought some of it's assets and took over some of it's gates, but that's it. ATA= American Trans Air .How about Morris or AirTran instead?

pedantic

frmrCapCadet wrote:

pedantic

guilty of obfuscation -- there is a difference between ATA and AirTran in case you did not notice.

airzona11 wrote:

superjeff wrote:

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

That's a good way of describing it. Every time you're on a US legacy carrier complaining about the dwindling legroom, how drinks and meals used to be free, how IFE options are garbage, etc., remember that WN started it. Every move down the drain that the real carriers have made in the last 25 years has been to keep up with the trailer-parkification of the industry started by WN.

Absolutely true.

These 2 comments are some of the best (ridiculous) I have read on anet. WN has led the industry in profitability. Customer service. Great places to work. customer satisfaction, you name it, compared to the legacy carriers over the last 25 years. Trailer park? Intellectually, not sure how to type that with a straight face. What are passengers booking flights based on? Price 1, schedule 2. Pretty indisputable. I get far better service, on a more consistent basis on WN, then I do legacy carriers. Maybe that is just me. WN has been consistent for 40+ years, sans adding 137-143 seats on their planes. Not much variation, and still a better onboard product or on par with the legacies.

I know you 2 probably only fly first class so it doesnt apply to you. But come on man.

Actually I primarily fly Economy in the U.S. domestic, Premium Economy internationally, and very occasionally Business Class. But the OP and I both feel (apparently) that there was a time when flying was, at least, a lot more civil than now. Southwest (and PSA in California) started the trend to lower (or even no) frills. Yes, they do have frequent flights on most routes, and yes, they have (sometimes) funny flight attendants, but they still have cattle call boarding and are still essentially no frills. I agree that many people buy on price alone, but personally, I prefer to purchase value. Sometimes I'd rather pay a bit more to get a bit more. .. .

I disagree. Unless they already have family in Hawaii, most people don't go on vacation there with just carry-on.

I have. Bring the largest backpack or duffel that will qualify as a carry on. Pack only what you need, nothing more. If you buy anything extra, ship it home in a USPS flat rate box. $20 USD-ish gets you up to 120 lbs in the large rectangular game sized box. Visitors to Hawaii do it all of the time. Ship it the day before you leave, it's on your porch the day after you get back.

Admittedly, most people won't travel this way, especially not those with children, just the experienced Hawaii travelers. But, it does happen.

stl07 wrote:

737MAX7 wrote:

Having flown DL, UA, WN and AA in economy I always laugh when WN haters try to make the legacy product seem 10x better than it really is, it gets old real quick.

In terms of service, WN is almost if not the exact same. What makes everyone think WN is a horrible airline is their pre-boarding experience. All of it. Try to book a ticket and realize that your airport is not covered or your favorite ff program is not available for use due to lack of codeshares. Reach the airport and realize that after check in there is no lounge. Then, of course, we have the famous cattle call which even NK lacks.

Myth busters proved Southwest boarding style was the quickest boarding method.

https://jalopnik.com/mythbusters-proves ... 1636981904

ADrum23 wrote:

barney captain wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I thought flights were only going on sale in 2018 and the first flights wouldn't even take off until early 2019.

I guess they are waiting for the MAX 8 to become ETOPS certified before starting. Couldn't they use the 738 right now if they wanted to start this year, since it is already ETOPS certified?

We are. The first 29 800's came ETOPS equipped, were are just waiting on the FAA approval. It will probably be awhile before the MAX goes TPAC.

Hold on, you stated WN is waiting for the MAX 8 to become ETOPS certified before starting Hawaii, yet, you also stated it will probably be a while before the MAX goes TPAC? Could you clarify?

The max is already ETOPS. Each airplane has ago get ETOPS approval before airlines can apply for it on their routes. Each airline must prove they can operate ETOPS safely, separate from the airframes rating. So yes all of Southwest 737-800's could be ETOPS certified and have all the ETOPS components installed. But the airline itself has to get their ETOPS on their own. 1 cert for plane & 1 cert for airline.

I recently flew to PHX I paid the $15 for Earlybird check in I sat it seat 1A for two of the legs the other two flights I had an Exit row. How much would of it cost me to sit in these seats on another carrier I would have to think that those seats would be considered economy plus? In my opinion there broading process is great just because it’s different doesn’t mean it’s weing. I was actually planning on visiting Hawaii in 2018 but I’m gonna push that back to see how and if WN flights will work for me.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

barney captain wrote:

ctrabs0114 wrote:

I wonder if there's a difference between ETOPS certified for TPAC flights as opposed to TATL or flights to the Caribbean. Or if the 738 has enough range for LAX/SAN/OAK to HNL.

737-800's have been flying those routes for over a decade - so I don't understand your question about range. Yes, they can make it.

There is no TPAC or TATL ETOPS - just ETOPS.

That clarifies things a little bit. If WN's 738/3M8 fleets are ETOPS certified; I have to wonder if one of the holdups in starting service to Hawaii is labor/CBA related.

The aircraft have ETOPS certification, but EACH AIRLINE must get their own separate ETOPS certification. The ETOPS capable plane does not come with the right of any airline to just fly it ETOPS. It's like in Arizona when you buy a BAR that has a liquor license you cannot open the bar and sell liquor until you pass the requirements to use the license you have purchased.

EA CO AS wrote:

Dismiss it if you wish

Fear not, we will... as it will amount to absolutely nothing in the long term of their service.

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

That's a good way of describing it. Every time you're on a US legacy carrier complaining about the dwindling legroom, how drinks and meals used to be free, how IFE options are garbage, etc., remember that WN started it. Every move down the drain that the real carriers have made in the last 25 years has been to keep up with the trailer-parkification of the industry started by WN.

Save for the IFE part, none of this is even remotely accurate.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

I wonder if there's a difference between ETOPS certified for TPAC flights as opposed to TATL or flights to the Caribbean. Or if the 738 has enough range for LAX/SAN/OAK to HNL.

No, and 738s have been doing it every day for nearly two decades, so gonna go with: yes, they can.

WNCrew wrote:

Yes, and in the investor call he also said our plans are to start service in the 4th qtr, but that we don't have control over ETOPS approval. So, it could be "spun" any way we chose eh?

No, WN doesn't do anything quickly, but if their financial success is any indication of metered progress, then perhaps QUICK action is not necessary.

I can't imagine SWA having to many significant issues with ETOPS approvals. Several years ago they hired the guy who headed up AS ETOPS program (don't know if he is still there), but they also work closely with the Boeing ETOPS GURUS as well. There is no mystery to this program as dozens of airlines have done this many times before.

I suspect SWA is looking at this destination and wondering if it's as important to them, as it is many A Netters?

LAX772LR wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Dismiss it if you wish

Fear not, we will... as it will amount to absolutely nothing in the long term of their service.

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

That's a good way of describing it. Every time you're on a US legacy carrier complaining about the dwindling legroom, how drinks and meals used to be free, how IFE options are garbage, etc., remember that WN started it. Every move down the drain that the real carriers have made in the last 25 years has been to keep up with the trailer-parkification of the industry started by WN.

Save for the IFE part, none of this is even remotely accurate.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

I wonder if there's a difference between ETOPS certified for TPAC flights as opposed to TATL or flights to the Caribbean. Or if the 738 has enough range for LAX/SAN/OAK to HNL.

No, and 738s have been doing it every day for nearly two decades, so gonna go with: yes, they can.

You can fly the North Atlantic with 120 Minute ETOPS but you need 180 Minutes for the CEP.

rbavfan wrote:

ctrabs0114 wrote:

barney captain wrote:

737-800's have been flying those routes for over a decade - so I don't understand your question about range. Yes, they can make it.

There is no TPAC or TATL ETOPS - just ETOPS.

That clarifies things a little bit. If WN's 738/3M8 fleets are ETOPS certified; I have to wonder if one of the holdups in starting service to Hawaii is labor/CBA related.

The aircraft have ETOPS certification, but EACH AIRLINE must get their own separate ETOPS certification. The ETOPS capable plane does not come with the right of any airline to just fly it ETOPS. It's like in Arizona when you buy a BAR that has a liquor license you cannot open the bar and sell liquor until you pass the requirements to use the license you have purchased.

What delays many initial ETOPS applications is usually the carrier’s aircraft reliability and monitoring program. Airlines must demonstrate years of service reliability and monitoring and the program must reflect specific actions to address any reliability issues. Things like APU EGT monitoring, oil consumption, APU in flight start reliability (which can save several hundred pounds of fuel per flight and can be critical on an ETOPS 737) and a program to correct chronic aircraft defects. All of your spare parts used on ETOPS aircraft significant systems must be approved and meet the criteria for ETOPS operations. G4 had some issues with their Initial ETOPS program. They purchased used 757’s that were previously flown under Thompson’s ETOPS program but couldn’t demonstrate their own reliability with the new sub fleet, hence it took about two years to get the Hawaii routes operational. Additionally, all of these processes must be outlined in various operational and maintenance manuals, which must be approved by the regulating authority. It’s a lengthy process.

BravoOne wrote:

You can fly the North Atlantic with 120 Minute ETOPS but you need 180 Minutes for the CEP.

You can fly the N.Atlantic with no ETOPS....

Yea you can do in Tris and Quads but you cannot do it within the NAT and don't think there are any airlines flying the Blue Spruce routes these days?

Wingtips56 wrote:

Others are free to correct me, but I don't think the Gulf of Mexico requires ETOPS. Overwater kits (life vests, rafts) yes, but you're never 2 hours away from a diversion airport. So if I'm correct, WN hasn't needed to be ETOPS yet.
I assume you are referring specifically to WN, as others have been flying ETOPS 73G , 738 and 739 Mainland-to/from-Hawaii for years.

Beyond 60 minutes is the ETOPS threshold.

BravoOne wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Others are free to correct me, but I don't think the Gulf of Mexico requires ETOPS. Overwater kits (life vests, rafts) yes, but you're never 2 hours away from a diversion airport. So if I'm correct, WN hasn't needed to be ETOPS yet.
I assume you are referring specifically to WN, as others have been flying ETOPS 73G , 738 and 739 Mainland-to/from-Hawaii for years.

Beyond 60 minutes is the ETOPS threshold.

Not sure what a 73G is? Do you mean a 737NG (700/800/900)

barney captain wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Others are free to correct me, but I don't think the Gulf of Mexico requires ETOPS. Overwater kits (life vests, rafts) yes, but you're never 2 hours away from a diversion airport. So if I'm correct, WN hasn't needed to be ETOPS yet.
I assume you are referring specifically to WN, as others have been flying ETOPS 73G , 738 and 739 Mainland-to/from-Hawaii for years.

You are correct - the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico do not require ETOPS. Here's the rough breakdown -

Up to 50nm from shore = no requirments
Up to 100/162nm from shore (depending on latitude) = life vets
Up to 60 minutes from shore = life rafts/vests
Over 60 minutes from shore = ETOPS

Not really from "shore" but rather from a designated ETOPS airports. Look at the Canadian Maritimes and you will that CYYR and CYQX are not exactly coastal.

BravoOne wrote:

barney captain wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Others are free to correct me, but I don't think the Gulf of Mexico requires ETOPS. Overwater kits (life vests, rafts) yes, but you're never 2 hours away from a diversion airport. So if I'm correct, WN hasn't needed to be ETOPS yet.
I assume you are referring specifically to WN, as others have been flying ETOPS 73G , 738 and 739 Mainland-to/from-Hawaii for years.

You are correct - the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico do not require ETOPS. Here's the rough breakdown -

Up to 50nm from shore = no requirments
Up to 100/162nm from shore (depending on latitude) = life vets
Up to 60 minutes from shore = life rafts/vests
Over 60 minutes from shore = ETOPS

Not really from "shore" but rather from a designated ETOPS airports. Look at the Canadian Maritimes and you will that CYYR and CYQX are not exactly coastal.

While doing this you must remain within the zero wind circles.

For the record there are 75, 90, 120, 138. 207,240 and beyond 240 ETOPS. You need 180 for the Central Eastern Pacific and at least 120 for the North Atlantic tracks in spite of what others may say. Flying below the tracks, around the tracks is not a viable plan other than perhaps ferrying an airplane to a point of repair.

rbavfan wrote:

stl07 wrote:

737MAX7 wrote:

Having flown DL, UA, WN and AA in economy I always laugh when WN haters try to make the legacy product seem 10x better than it really is, it gets old real quick.

In terms of service, WN is almost if not the exact same. What makes everyone think WN is a horrible airline is their pre-boarding experience. All of it. Try to book a ticket and realize that your airport is not covered or your favorite ff program is not available for use due to lack of codeshares. Reach the airport and realize that after check in there is no lounge. Then, of course, we have the famous cattle call which even NK lacks.

Myth busters proved Southwest boarding style was the quickest boarding method.

https://jalopnik.com/mythbusters-proves ... 1636981904

Good. Like I said, I was only listing out reasons why people don't fly WN.

Not really from "shore" but rather from a designated ETOPS airports. Look at the Canadian Maritimes and you will that CYYR and CYQX are not exactly coastal.

Correct - I guess I was basing the "shore" comment on how it related to WN and the west coast to Hawaii.

BravoOne wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Others are free to correct me, but I don't think the Gulf of Mexico requires ETOPS. Overwater kits (life vests, rafts) yes, but you're never 2 hours away from a diversion airport. So if I'm correct, WN hasn't needed to be ETOPS yet.
I assume you are referring specifically to WN, as others have been flying ETOPS 73G , 738 and 739 Mainland-to/from-Hawaii for years.

Beyond 60 minutes is the ETOPS threshold.

Not sure what a 73G is? Do you mean a 737NG (700/800/900)

From [url]this thread from 2004[/url]: B737 would represent a 737-100 airframe (not my post; just passing it along); the B73G is a common designation for the 737-700 (the explanation in the thread is that "G" is the seventh letter of the alphabet, hence the 73G designation).

That that for what it's worth...

ctrabs0114 wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Beyond 60 minutes is the ETOPS threshold.

Not sure what a 73G is? Do you mean a 737NG (700/800/900)

From [url]this thread from 2004[/url]: B737 would represent a 737-100 airframe (not my post; just passing it along); the B73G is a common designation for the 737-700 (the explanation in the thread is that "G" is the seventh letter of the alphabet, hence the 73G designation).

That that for what it's worth...

Never heard that one before, nor have I heard it or seen it at The Boeing Company.

BravoOne wrote:

ctrabs0114 wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Not sure what a 73G is? Do you mean a 737NG (700/800/900)

From [url]this thread from 2004[/url]: B737 would represent a 737-100 airframe (not my post; just passing it along); the B73G is a common designation for the 737-700 (the explanation in the thread is that "G" is the seventh letter of the alphabet, hence the 73G designation).

That that for what it's worth...

Never heard that one before, nor have I heard it or seen it at The Boeing Company.

73G is the IATA code for the 737-700.

IATA/ICAO

731 B731 Boeing 737-100 pax M
732 B732 Boeing 737-200 pax M
733 B733 Boeing 737-300 pax M
734 B734 Boeing 737-400 pax M
735 B735 Boeing 737-500 pax M
736 B736 Boeing 737-600 pax M
737 n/a Boeing 737 all pax models M
738 B738 Boeing 737-800 pax M
739 B739 Boeing 737-900 pax M
73F n/a Boeing 737 all Freighter models M
73G B737 Boeing 737-700 pax M
73H B738 Boeing 737-800 (winglets) pax M
73M B732 Boeing 737-200 Combi M
73W B737 Boeing 737-700 (winglets) pax M
73X B732 Boeing 737-200 Freighter M
73Y B733 Boeing 737-300 Freighter

barney captain wrote:

Not really from "shore" but rather from a designated ETOPS airports. Look at the Canadian Maritimes and you will that CYYR and CYQX are not exactly coastal.

Correct - I guess I was basing the "shore" comment on how it related to WN and the west coast to Hawaii.

SWA needs to clean u their boarding policy regarding handicapped pax and the multitude of follow on family members, or at least I think that's who they are? Talk about chain migration, and of course most them sit in the front few rows. Can't help but wonder how ten or twelve handicapped people would be able to get out when another 100 are right behind them trying to push their way to the front as they evacuate. Is there a limit regarding how many handicapped you can accept? I don't think so... This s probably exacerbated in the LAS market and that's where I see it most. Twelve wheelchairs lined up in the jetway is a bit much IMO. Before anyone jumps on me regarding the handicapped, I realize that this is probably mandated by some Federal agency that remains clueless regarding aviation safety.

barney captain wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

ctrabs0114 wrote:

From [url]this thread from 2004[/url]: B737 would represent a 737-100 airframe (not my post; just passing it along); the B73G is a common designation for the 737-700 (the explanation in the thread is that "G" is the seventh letter of the alphabet, hence the 73G designation).

That that for what it's worth...

Never heard that one before, nor have I heard it or seen it at The Boeing Company.

73G is the IATA code for the 737-700.

IATA/ICAO

731 B731 Boeing 737-100 pax M
732 B732 Boeing 737-200 pax M
733 B733 Boeing 737-300 pax M
734 B734 Boeing 737-400 pax M
735 B735 Boeing 737-500 pax M
736 B736 Boeing 737-600 pax M
737 n/a Boeing 737 all pax models M
738 B738 Boeing 737-800 pax M
739 B739 Boeing 737-900 pax M
73F n/a Boeing 737 all Freighter models M
73G B737 Boeing 737-700 pax M
73H B738 Boeing 737-800 (winglets) pax M
73M B732 Boeing 737-200 Combi M
73W B737 Boeing 737-700 (winglets) pax M
73X B732 Boeing 737-200 Freighter M
73Y B733 Boeing 737-300 Freighter

Thanks Barney, haven't see that one before. I notice that a ICAO flight plan for the 737-8M is shown as 738/M?

barney captain wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I thought flights were only going on sale in 2018 and the first flights wouldn't even take off until early 2019.

I guess they are waiting for the MAX 8 to become ETOPS certified before starting. Couldn't they use the 738 right now if they wanted to start this year, since it is already ETOPS certified?

We are. The first 29 800's came ETOPS equipped, were are just waiting on the FAA approval. It will probably be awhile before the MAX goes TPAC.

That would be the 8300 series? I flew on ship 8310 on its 4th day in service, MDW-FLL in June 2012.

That would be the 8300 series? I flew on ship 8310 on its 4th day in service, MDW-FLL in June 2012.

Exactly - any N83XXX 800 came ETOPS equipped from Boeing, followed by the non-ETOPS 800's with N86XXX, N85XXX and finally the MAX's with N87XXX. The handful of ETOP MAX's are just mixed in with the regular registration numbers.

For the MAX 8713 and on have all been delivered with ETOPS markings.

I posted this in a couple other WN threads, but I'm posting this here to the WN-Hawaii specific thread...

Based on what Gary Kelly told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Tuesday, it looks like LAX and one other California station (I'd guess OAK) will be the two cities which launch Hawaii service:

Southwest is still waiting for federal clearance to launch flights to Hawaii by the end of this year, but Kelly said initial service will be limited to one or two yet-to-be-determined airports in California.

Southwest has no immediate plans for nonstop flights between Hawaii and McCarran International, but Kelly noted that Las Vegas is a one-hour hop to most California airports.

“We have such great service between California and Las Vegas, so I think we’ll have very nice itineraries to and from Hawaii and here as well,” Kelly said. “I think that’s definitely something to look forward to more in 2019 or 2020 as we continue to grow our presence in Hawaii.”