https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/n ... ssion=true
Apologies if this has already been posted or discussed. Article pretty much says it all. Current focus is on Hawaii, and Canada and Europe provide challenges not presented by Latin America. Article says "few years time", how likely do you see that? Additionally, could we see a BOS focus city built for European expansion?

intotheair wrote:

I still have trouble imagining WN flying to Europe on its own metal anytime soon. I've long thought a codeshare or deeper agreement with DY would be a good pairing.

Why is it hard to imagine, if they have the MAX-7 which has the legs?

What is the difficulty with Canada?

I still have trouble imagining WN flying to Europe on its own metal anytime soon. I've long thought a codeshare or deeper agreement with DY would be a good pairing.

Discussed last week here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1384993&hilit=Southwest+network&start=250

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

WN will need 50% Canada point-of-sale (POS) to make transborder routes work. Right now all of their international routes are to points south, where it's easy to get 90% USA POS.

It's taken WN over 10yrs to get Hawaii going and it's still not complete. So WN to Europe is way off I imagine! 2055 my guess.
One Res was supposed to fix all the foreign currency issues. And there still not selling tickets in the Caribbean or Mexico. So Canada I don't see until 2025 or later. All those 50 potential destinations it can add to its route map right!
Let's not Forget the Red Eye issues another rumor fix with One Res.
Also any Codeshares are so regulated by the Pilot contract it's almost laughable if they will ever get anything worth wild started.

Personally I think this was just some PR fluf to take the press attention off other things WN related.

Flyguy

intotheair wrote:

I still have trouble imagining WN flying to Europe on its own metal anytime soon. I've long thought a codeshare or deeper agreement with DY would be a good pairing.

The article says codeshare

intotheair wrote:

I still have trouble imagining WN flying to Europe on its own metal anytime soon. I've long thought a codeshare or deeper agreement with DY would be a good pairing.

I wouldn't hold my breath on DY. As I recall (i may have my facts wrong) any codeshare WN enters has to go through the pilot union. DY is not favored by American pilots so I don't see this going over lightly.

There are a handful of Western European cities for which this service might work. Of these the good ones are served adequately. The others are the very essence of ‘thin’ routes even in the summer, never mind the rest of the year. And coming from the other direction, not everyone wants to go to Boston. I don’t think U.S. to Europe in 737s is the ‘gold rush’ some are suggesting it will be.

Dominion301 wrote:

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

WN will need 50% Canada point-of-sale (POS) to make transborder routes work. Right now all of their international routes are to points south, where it's easy to get 90% USA POS.

It's seems like Canada is one of the few places where they could get foreign POS relatively easily. Canadians know about Southwest and they would be okay with going to Southwest.com to buy a ticket vs. going to a brick and mortar travel agent which can be the case in Latin America.

Dominion301 wrote:

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

WN will need 50% Canada point-of-sale (POS) to make transborder routes work. Right now all of their international routes are to points south, where it's easy to get 90% USA POS.

If Southwest starts service to Canadian destinations, WN could add nonstop service to Canadian destinations from the largest WN stations that aren't in the markets of US3 hub airports, including SAN, STL, BNA, SMF, MCI, AUS, and MSY. WN might also be able to capture some of the connecting traffic to destinations in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean from Canada if WN adds nonstop service to HOU, MDW, BWI, and FLL from Canadian airports.

While WN doesn't currently serve any airports inside Canada itself, there are already some customers in the Canadian province of Ontario who fly out of BUF and DTW on WN. WN might be able to capture some Toronto-area customers who would otherwise fly out of BUF on WN if it started service to YYZ, and YYZ is far enough from BUF and the US-Canada border for WN to consider serving YYZ.

One big competitive advantage that WN would have over AC, WS, AA, DL, and UA if it added service to Canadian destinations is that WN doesn't charge fees for the 1st and 2nd checked bags like AC, WS, AA, DL, and UA do. WN also doesn't charge change fees to change an itinerary that AC, WS, AA, DL, and UA do, even though WN will charge difference in fare in cases where the fare of the changed itinerary is higher than the fare of the original itinerary. These competitive advantages that WN has over the 2 big Canadian airlines and the big 3 U.S. legacy carriers will make WN an attractive option for some Canadian customers who are traveling to the U.S.

INFINITI329 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

I still have trouble imagining WN flying to Europe on its own metal anytime soon. I've long thought a codeshare or deeper agreement with DY would be a good pairing.

I wouldn't hold my breath on DY. As I recall (i may have my facts wrong) any codeshare WN enters has to go through the pilot union. DY is not favored by American pilots so I don't see this going over lightly.

IIRC, users such as barney captain have stated that WN codesharing with flag of convenience carriers such as DY is prohibited under the pilot contract. State owned carriers such as EK are also prohibited.

alggag wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

WN will need 50% Canada point-of-sale (POS) to make transborder routes work. Right now all of their international routes are to points south, where it's easy to get 90% USA POS.

It's seems like Canada is one of the few places where they could get foreign POS relatively easily. Canadians know about Southwest and they would be okay with going to Southwest.com to buy a ticket vs. going to a brick and mortar travel agent which can be the case in Latin America.

Why WN didn't go through with the WS codeshare is beyond me. One of the biggest missed opportunities of the last decade.

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

In his quote, he stated they still need foreign currency. I assume that means their system is not set up to handle anything other than USD.

Gary Kelly wrote:

To do that, "we need foreign currency, foreign language, then there are other technologies that will likely need to support connecting with other airlines," Kelly said, "but that is also something I hope to undertake within the next five years."

WN really needs to get going with codesharing, it may be one of the biggest untapped markets in aviation today. For me, it is incredibly frustrating that I cannot use WN to connect onto long haul carriers.

This is unlikely to happen because of the AA jv, but BA would be a perfect codeshare for WN, considering BA flies into almost every WN station/focus city (except for STL and SMF, but the former could be added next if BA expands any further in North America).

WS would have been perfect for WN to get into the Canadian market, but that ship has sailed. It baffles me why they didn't pursue that further.

What unaffiliated overseas carriers (European, Asian or otherwise) do you think WN could partner with that meets the narrow requirements outlined by the pilot contract?

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

Timidity. What's the problem with Hawaii? 738 ETOPS? BFD. How many carriers are running 737NGs with 180 ETOPS today? It's the same as it taking twenty years after the implementation of NAFTA for Southwest to discover Mexico. For 12 months ending 9/2017, there were more air arrivals to the U.S. from Mexico than from Canada; 50% more than from the U.K.

Also, if WN is even remotely considering Europe then they really need to remove the silly geoblocking from their website. Even now it can frustratingly difficult to book a domestic WN flight as they totally block certain countries in Europe.

MIflyer12 wrote:

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

Timidity. What's the problem with Hawaii? 738 ETOPS? BFD. How many carriers are running 737NGs with 180 ETOPS today? It's the same as it taking twenty years after the implementation of NAFTA for Southwest to discover Mexico. For 12 months ending 9/2017, there were more air arrivals to the U.S. from Mexico than from Canada; 50% more than from the U.K.

Why would they need etops for Canada? Even florida to Canada doesn't need it.

WorldFlier wrote:

intotheair wrote:

I still have trouble imagining WN flying to Europe on its own metal anytime soon. I've long thought a codeshare or deeper agreement with DY would be a good pairing.

Why is it hard to imagine, if they have the MAX-7 which has the legs?

My bet is that they have a designated fleet of MAX-7s for TATL flights that feature the additional inch or two of the -800 and MAX-8 layouts. The advantage to this is twofold: the passengers will be slightly more comfortable than the more cramped domestic configuration, and it reduces the weight of the aircraft to give it a little extra range.

Given WN's track record of profitability, perhaps the slow and take your time and execute well approach is not so bad. If all those "golden opportunities" that were missed were actually agressively pursued in the past, perhaps WN would not have performed as well as they have. Certainly we've seen other merger/diworsification examples.

XT6Wagon wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

Timidity. What's the problem with Hawaii? 738 ETOPS? BFD. How many carriers are running 737NGs with 180 ETOPS today? It's the same as it taking twenty years after the implementation of NAFTA for Southwest to discover Mexico. For 12 months ending 9/2017, there were more air arrivals to the U.S. from Mexico than from Canada; 50% more than from the U.K.

Why would they need etops for Canada? Even florida to Canada doesn't need it.

I don't think the poster was saying they would need ETOPS for Canada service; rather, he was mocking the excuse that ETOPS certification is preventing quicker implementation of Hawaii service.

Didn't WN have some sort of codeshare or flirtation with Icelandair out of BWI at some point?

Chemist wrote:

Given WN's track record of profitability, perhaps the slow and take your time and execute well approach is not so bad. If all those "golden opportunities" that were missed were actually agressively pursued in the past, perhaps WN would not have performed as well as they have. Certainly we've seen other merger/diworsification examples.

This.

On a.net an airline is failing unless they add flights left right and center. Abandoning a successful base and strategy chasing the golden goose isnt a long term strategy.

BWIAirport wrote:

XT6Wagon wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Timidity. What's the problem with Hawaii? 738 ETOPS? BFD. How many carriers are running 737NGs with 180 ETOPS today? It's the same as it taking twenty years after the implementation of NAFTA for Southwest to discover Mexico. For 12 months ending 9/2017, there were more air arrivals to the U.S. from Mexico than from Canada; 50% more than from the U.K.

Why would they need etops for Canada? Even florida to Canada doesn't need it.

I don't think the poster was saying they would need ETOPS for Canada service; rather, he was mocking the excuse that ETOPS certification is preventing quicker implementation of Hawaii service.

The only ETOPS needed on transborder routes is Canada-Hawaii, which no US carrier presently does (in fact has any US carrier ever done so? Aloha back in the day to YVR?).

ADrum23 wrote:

What unaffiliated overseas carriers (European, Asian or otherwise) do you think WN could partner with that meets the narrow requirements outlined by the pilot contract?

There are a few Asia Pacific carriers currently serving HNL that WN could potentially partner with, including AirAsia X, JetStar Airways, Jin Air, and Scoot. However, these codeshare opportunities would require connecting at HNL, and the connecting opportunities that would exist with a WN-D7, WN-JQ, WN-LJ, or WN-TR partnership would largely be limited to Hawaii and California.

WN did have a partnership with Icelandair in the past, and WN could revive its partnership with FI.

Does the DL-VS transatlantic joint venture agreement preclude the possibility of a WN-VS partnership? There are a few U.S. airports other than DL hubs or focus cities that are served by both WN and VS, including LAS, SFO, and IAD, and some additional connecting opportunities would exist if WN is able to partner with VS.

BWIAirport wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2018/05/16/southwest-eyes-new-international-routes-and-bwi.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true
Apologies if this has already been posted or discussed. Article pretty much says it all. Current focus is on Hawaii, and Canada and Europe provide challenges not presented by Latin America. Article says "few years time", how likely do you see that? Additionally, could we see a BOS focus city built for European expansion?

they are stuck at 5 gates in BOS and unlikely to get more. Outside of their fortress hubs, they don't make money on stuff out of there.

Canada is possible as a next step. Europe isn't going to happen unless they first get a premium product going. Their costs are not so low that they can match FI or WW fares. Their product simply isn't geared for long range stuff.

MIflyer12 wrote:

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

Timidity. What's the problem with Hawaii? 738 ETOPS? BFD. How many carriers are running 737NGs with 180 ETOPS today? It's the same as it taking twenty years after the implementation of NAFTA for Southwest to discover Mexico. For 12 months ending 9/2017, there were more air arrivals to the U.S. from Mexico than from Canada; 50% more than from the U.K.

ETOPS takes time. Not 20 years, but it is still probably one of the most difficult/time consuming certifications for an airline to receive. The 767 has been ETOPS for decades and Aloha Cargo/Northern Air Cargo are taking quite a while. Manuals have to be written, parts inventories for ETOPS must be established, proving runs, crew and maintenance training, etc.

I’m not sure when WN started the process in earnest, but ETOPS isn’t something that happens quickly.

Dominion301 wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

XT6Wagon wrote:

Why would they need etops for Canada? Even florida to Canada doesn't need it.

I don't think the poster was saying they would need ETOPS for Canada service; rather, he was mocking the excuse that ETOPS certification is preventing quicker implementation of Hawaii service.

The only ETOPS needed on transborder routes is Canada-Hawaii, which no US carrier presently does (in fact has any US carrier ever done so? Aloha back in the day to YVR?).

CO used to run YVR to HNL
http://www.departedflights.com/CO020187p9.html

ADrum23 wrote:

WN really needs to get going with codesharing, it may be one of the biggest untapped markets in aviation today. For me, it is incredibly frustrating that I cannot use WN to connect onto long haul carriers.

This is unlikely to happen because of the AA jv, but BA would be a perfect codeshare for WN, considering BA flies into almost every WN station/focus city (except for STL and SMF, but the former could be added next if BA expands any further in North America).

WS would have been perfect for WN to get into the Canadian market, but that ship has sailed. It baffles me why they didn't pursue that further.

What unaffiliated overseas carriers (European, Asian or otherwise) do you think WN could partner with that meets the narrow requirements outlined by the pilot contract?

You're looking at this from the WN end, where passengers are familiar with their by now unique free seating and boarding group system. What's in it for a long haul carrier codesharing with WN? Someone comes off an 8 hour flight, or longer, jet lagged, does battle with the lines at US CBP, rechecks their bags, and then finds that they are unable to sit next to their travelling companion, despite having booked months previously. People are becoming increasingly used to having to pay extra to reserve specific seats so they can sit together, but they can't even do that on WN. Brand damage much for the long haul carrier?
When LCCs started in Europe, they looked to SouthWest as the example and all started off with unallocated seating. By now every single one has gone to allocated seating, both because of the genuinely enormous passenger backlash and because they can monetise seat reservations. Does WN want to give up their tried and tested seating system? They're going to have to if they expect to sell seats outside North America, even as part of a codeshare.

jplatts wrote:

Does the DL-VS transatlantic joint venture agreement preclude the possibility of a WN-VS partnership? There are a few U.S. airports other than DL hubs or focus cities that are served by both WN and VS, including LAS, SFO, and IAD, and some additional connecting opportunities would exist if WN is able to partner with VS.

But VS is effectively controlled by DL. DL has 49% of the equity in the airline, and their good friend AF/KL has another 31%. VS does what it is told, it is only an independent airline on paper. The only way a WN codeshare would be of any value to the VS business right now is if WN go to cities with significant demand for transatlantic travel that can't be served at all by connecting at a Delta hub, AMS, or CDG.

WN would be able to serve Hawaiian nonstop from AUS, DAL, and SAT if it had planes capable of operating nonstop flights to DUB, LIS, LGW, and MAD from BWI. WN also could possibly serve CTS and NRT nonstop from Hawaii if it had planes capable of doing BWI to Europe nonstop flights.

The published range for the Boeing 737 MAX 7 is 4430 mi, and the published range for the Boeing 737 MAX 8 is 4085 mi. DUB, LIS, LGW, and MAD are all within a 4000 mi radius of BWI. AUS, DAL, SAT, CTS, and NRT are all within a 4000 mi radius of HNL. WN might be able to get the range needed for BWI-Europe nonstop service, Hawaii-Texas nonstop service, and Hawaii-Japan nonstop service if it orders 737 MAX planes with auxiliary fuel tanks.

If WN does plan on operating BWI-Europe nonstop flights, are there any modifications other than auxiliary fuel tanks or ETOPS capability that would be required for BWI-Europe nonstop flights if WN plans on using 737 MAX planes for BWI-Europe nonstop flights?

Here is what WN's long-haul network could look like someday:

Nonstop routes from HNL to DEN, MCI, and Texas:


Transatlantic routes to Europe from BWI, MDW, CMH, and BNA:


Transpacific routes to Asia from ANC and HNL:


Long-haul routes to South America from FLL and HOU:


Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz

Chemist wrote:

Given WN's track record of profitability, perhaps the slow and take your time and execute well approach is not so bad. If all those "golden opportunities" that were missed were actually agressively pursued in the past, perhaps WN would not have performed as well as they have. Certainly we've seen other merger/diworsification examples.

Well said. Reading this thread it would seem like WN is still figuring out how to make the airline model work.

jplatts wrote:

Here is what WN's long-haul network could look like someday:

I can only assume this was your rather detailed attempt at humor, yes? If so, bravo!
If not... please seek professional help.

osupoke07 wrote:

I assume that means their system is not set up to handle anything other than USD.

Gary Kelly wrote:

To do that, "we need foreign currency, foreign language, then there are other technologies that will likely need to support connecting with other airlines," Kelly said, "but that is also something I hope to undertake within the next five years."

I will never understand the sheer magnitude of shortsightedness that seemingly went into creating/maintaining WN's IT system......

jplatts wrote:

Does the DL-VS transatlantic joint venture agreement preclude the possibility of a WN-VS partnership? There are a few U.S. airports other than DL hubs or focus cities that are served by both WN and VS, including LAS, SFO, and IAD, and some additional connecting opportunities would exist if WN is able to partner with VS.

For what? What on Earth would be the point?

DL flies to plenty of places WN doesn't, but where is WN able to get someone that DL couldn't?

LAX772LR wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Does the DL-VS transatlantic joint venture agreement preclude the possibility of a WN-VS partnership? There are a few U.S. airports other than DL hubs or focus cities that are served by both WN and VS, including LAS, SFO, and IAD, and some additional connecting opportunities would exist if WN is able to partner with VS.

For what? What on Earth would be the point?

DL flies to plenty of places WN doesn't, but where is WN able to get someone that DL couldn't?

AMA, LBB, MAF, and CRP are served by WN but not by DL. However, CRP currently has no nonstop service to any of the airports that are served by both WN and VS, and LAS is out of the way for connections to LGW, LHR, and MAN from AMA, LBB, and MAF.

ISP is the only airport outside of Texas that is served by WN but not by DL, but ISP is located on Long Island and east of NYC in the NYC metropolitan area. DL also already serves Long Island through its LGA and JFK hubs.

chrisp390 wrote:

What is the difficulty with Canada?

Schedule utility, cost, margins and the regulatory/taxation environment that the airline would be operating under. Canada is a seasonal "long and thin" market with point of sale traditionally originating in the great white north. Those thinking that SW could achieve 50% POS with Canadians who are fiercely have supported local brands do not understand the complexity of the market. Why invest a lot of capital and operational costs that support two maybe three flights a day? The Canadian taxation and cost structure is not conducive to the WN strategy of establishing of lots of capacity into the market. When they go into a market, they normally don't go into a market with one or two flights, it's way more than that. The only city pair that sees an extremely robust transborder market is YYZ-LGA and even then that's supported by robust cnx traffic to secondary markets and 5th freedom opportunity. Secondary airports such as YXX, YLW are not a magic formula for transborder success either, many failed attempts at creating feed into the US have been tried.. The 737 is too much lift for those market in a lot of cases and aircraft are finite resources. Maximize your asset to realize yield, and utilization in known less risky markets. Align with a carrier that has the ability to offer a robust schedule, gauge of aircraft that fits the market, has the route authority, revenue systems in place. Codeshare, allows you to test the market, while reducing the risk. Evaluate the results and the potential for and then launch an all assault on the when you know what your dealing with.

The million dollar questions are: What carrier would they align with to offer codeshare? Is WN ready for the complexities of adding international markets? What are the costs that are associated with that expansion?

jplatts wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

DL flies to plenty of places WN doesn't, but where is WN able to get someone that DL couldn't?

AMA, LBB, MAF, and CRP are served by WN but not by DL. However, CRP currently has no nonstop service to any of the airports that are served by both WN and VS, and LAS is out of the way for connections to LGW, LHR, and MAN from AMA, LBB, and MAF.

ISP is the only airport outside of Texas that is served by WN but not by DL, but ISP is located on Long Island and east of NYC in the NYC metropolitan area. DL also already serves Long Island through its LGA and JFK hubs.

Awesome, so a handful of small towns concentrated in the same general area, surrounded by multiple hubs that grant them an easy connection to LON already.

With that in mind: count the dozens upon dozens of destinations that DL serves that WN doesn't, and tell me again why VS would feel the need to have anything to do with WN?