kaneporta1 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

longhauler wrote:

Southwest is under fiduciary responsibility to look at all options for increasing shareholder value. If the BOD has decided to ignore a yearly savings of over $1B, they better have a good reason why!

Zeke's number comes from a hypothetical world where you instantly convert 500 737-7s (not MAXes) to A220-300s with no other costs, and uses generic fuel burn specs.

It doesn't consider acquisition cost, nor training cost for pilots, FAs, or maintenance personnel (a big consideration, moving from CFM to Pratt), nor network inefficiencies introduced by having two different fleets with two different sets of crews, nor losing a few pax in capacity per flight (especially considering MAX-7 has grown).

Yes, many airlines do mixed fleets, but WN has really optimized itself around the single fleet concept.

Zeke also compared the per aircraft costs over a 15 year period. And although the number is not as big as for a fleet of 500 aircraft, it is still very significant and not that hypothetical at all.

As for Southwest:

They still need to pay for those 737-7s, so acquisition costs will be similar. Unless of course Boeing is giving them for free...
Their maintenance team still has to work on two types of engine right now (CFM56 and LEAP).
The cabin crews have to work on two different cabin configurations (737-700 and 737-800/Max8)
And finally, the network inefficiencies for not having the right aircraft will cost them a lot more than the inefficiencies of having 2 fleets. The landing fees alone would be enough to negate the 2-5 pax advantage of the 177,000lbs 737-7 vs the 149,000lbs A220-300.

You say they're optimized around a single fleet concept. Although the fleet is part of the equation, I would think they're optimized around a reliable, reasonably light 143-seat aircraft. However, Boeing doesn't offer this kind of aircraft anymore.

kaneporta1 wrote:

They still need to pay for those 737-7s, so acquisition costs will be similar. Unless of course Boeing is giving them for free...

Their maintenance team still has to work on two types of engine right now (CFM56 and LEAP).

The cabin crews have to work on two different cabin configurations (737-700 and 737-800/Max8)

And finally, the network inefficiencies for not having the right aircraft will cost them a lot more than the inefficiencies of having 2 fleets. The landing fees alone would be enough to negate the 2-5 pax advantage of the 177,000lbs 737-7 vs the 149,000lbs A220-300.

You say they're optimized around a single fleet concept. Although the fleet is part of the equation, I would think they're optimized around a reliable, reasonably light 143-seat aircraft. However, Boeing doesn't offer this kind of aircraft anymore.

ewt340 wrote:

WN operated 513 B737-700 with 143 PAX at 31" seat pitch.
They could fit 140-145 PAX at 31" seat pitch on A220-300.

Revelation wrote:

longhauler wrote:

Southwest is under fiduciary responsibility to look at all options for increasing shareholder value. If the BOD has decided to ignore a yearly savings of over $1B, they better have a good reason why!

Zeke's number comes from a hypothetical world where you instantly convert 500 737-7s (not MAXes) to A220-300s with no other costs, and uses generic fuel burn specs.

It doesn't consider acquisition cost, nor training cost for pilots, FAs, or maintenance personnel (a big consideration, moving from CFM to Pratt), nor network inefficiencies introduced by having two different fleets with two different sets of crews, nor losing a few pax in capacity per flight (especially considering MAX-7 has grown).

Yes, many airlines do mixed fleets, but WN has really optimized itself around the single fleet concept.

I'm sure someone in WN is cranking the numbers with a lot more detail than we have here, but given the CEO says a switch to something other than 737 is unforeseen, I think we know where things are going to end up.

longhauler wrote:

In my opinion, I am not saying Southwest will buy the A220, but ... I would certainly hope they gave it thought.

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of due diligence, or as the CEO says, doing it out of a sense of duty.

barney captain wrote:

You have authors writing widely speculative articles based on a industry standard practice of "looking" - not buying - because it can somehow be tied to the MAX. These visits happen regularly, and wouldn't even be newsworthy without some ridiculous spin to the MAX.

In spite of that and the glaringly obvious point that Kelly has repeated explained it and has said "we're not buying anything but the 737 for the foreseeable future", with have a thread with "28.000 views and 200 comments" that seem to continue to ignore those facts.

It seems some are able to foresee things the CEO himself cannot foresee, and like to discuss events that might come into existence in the gap between the unforeseeable and perpetuity, which my dictionary defines as "endless or indefinitely long duration or existence; eternity".

So, here we have some people who promote the idea that WN may buy something other than 737, an idea that the CEO says lies in the gap between the unforeseeable and eternity.

I feel pretty comfortable in my position.

bob75013 wrote:

You are wasting your breath.because all the A220 fanboys know the WN CEO was lying when he said there would be "no new fleet types in the near future. " What else could be the explanation?

bob75013 wrote:

inverted commas are called quotation marks -- meaning they specify a quote of what someone said.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

You are wasting your breath.because all the A220 fanboys know the WN CEO was lying when he said there would be "no new fleet types in the near future. " What else could be the explanation?

You've done this twice already; quoted something that only exists in your head.

The funny thing is that you hold others to higher standards, hence this helpful English lesson from yourself

bob75013 wrote:

inverted commas are called quotation marks -- meaning they specify a quote of what someone said.

So, for the second time I'm asking when did the WN CEO utter the words you claim?

Thanks to Revelation, I am quite aware of the words he actually used, and I will concede he said something along similar lines, but as Revelation might have said, the devil is in the detail.
And of course the other clue is that each time your "quote" changes, and deviates a little further from the truth.

p.s. you can reply with a meaningless sentence ending in an expletive again if you like; I guarantee it wasn't me that pulled the last one - I would much prefer your inability to recognise facts to stay on record for everyone to see.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

In response to the statement noted in the response immediately above, which Kelly stated that Southwest will not be only a 737 operator please note the following. The 737 MAX is going to be the last variant Boeing will build . Boeing will need to manufacture a NEW build narrow body aircraft to survive. The 737 is MAXED out and it is the end of the line for any newer 737s.

keesje wrote:

And Delta, Moxy and Jetblue will challenge them with A223 efficiency.

bob75013 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

You are wasting your breath.because all the A220 fanboys know the WN CEO was lying when he said there would be "no new fleet types in the near future. " What else could be the explanation?

You've done this twice already; quoted something that only exists in your head.

The funny thing is that you hold others to higher standards, hence this helpful English lesson from yourself

bob75013 wrote:

inverted commas are called quotation marks -- meaning they specify a quote of what someone said.

So, for the second time I'm asking when did the WN CEO utter the words you claim?

Thanks to Revelation, I am quite aware of the words he actually used, and I will concede he said something along similar lines, but as Revelation might have said, the devil is in the detail.
And of course the other clue is that each time your "quote" changes, and deviates a little further from the truth.

p.s. you can reply with a meaningless sentence ending in an expletive again if you like; I guarantee it wasn't me that pulled the last one - I would much prefer your inability to recognise facts to stay on record for everyone to see.

Do you believe that Reuters was lying?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sout ... SKCN1S12E5

"CHICAGO (Reuters) - Southwest Co Chief Executive Gary Kelly said on Thursday the company was sticking with its plan to keep growing its fleet with the 737 MAX made by Boeing Co and does not plan to order different aircraft models any time soon."

Gulfstream500 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

You've done this twice already; quoted something that only exists in your head.

The funny thing is that you hold others to higher standards, hence this helpful English lesson from yourself

So, for the second time I'm asking when did the WN CEO utter the words you claim?

Thanks to Revelation, I am quite aware of the words he actually used, and I will concede he said something along similar lines, but as Revelation might have said, the devil is in the detail.
And of course the other clue is that each time your "quote" changes, and deviates a little further from the truth.

p.s. you can reply with a meaningless sentence ending in an expletive again if you like; I guarantee it wasn't me that pulled the last one - I would much prefer your inability to recognise facts to stay on record for everyone to see.

Do you believe that Reuters was lying?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sout ... SKCN1S12E5

"CHICAGO (Reuters) - Southwest Co Chief Executive Gary Kelly said on Thursday the company was sticking with its plan to keep growing its fleet with the 737 MAX made by Boeing Co and does not plan to order different aircraft models any time soon."

Southwest’s existence was, at one point, not planned.

All of the things that Kelly has said are meant to mask their future so that other airlines do not copy their plans. If they are planning for years in the future, why give the other airlines a head start?

Time will tell what will happen. But straight up denying it will not convince anyone.

bob75013 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

In response to the statement noted in the response immediately above, which Kelly stated that Southwest will not be only a 737 operator please note the following. The 737 MAX is going to be the last variant Boeing will build . Boeing will need to manufacture a NEW build narrow body aircraft to survive. The 737 is MAXED out and it is the end of the line for any newer 737s.

I seem to recall people saying the same thing about the NGs. Time will tell.

CS500 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

In response to the statement noted in the response immediately above, which Kelly stated that Southwest will not be only a 737 operator please note the following. The 737 MAX is going to be the last variant Boeing will build . Boeing will need to manufacture a NEW build narrow body aircraft to survive. The 737 is MAXED out and it is the end of the line for any newer 737s.

I seem to recall people saying the same thing about the NGs. Time will tell.

I would be amazed if grandfathering rules are changed considerably after the MAX introduction issues (and hell, even Airbus with the GTF issues), with a time limit or number of iteration limit seeming inevitable, either of which would likely make a SUPER MAX 737 impossible.

bob75013 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

longhauler wrote:

Southwest is under fiduciary responsibility to look at all options for increasing shareholder value. If the BOD has decided to ignore a yearly savings of over $1B, they better have a good reason why!

Zeke's number comes from a hypothetical world where you instantly convert 500 737-7s (not MAXes) to A220-300s with no other costs, and uses generic fuel burn specs.

It doesn't consider acquisition cost, nor training cost for pilots, FAs, or maintenance personnel (a big consideration, moving from CFM to Pratt), nor network inefficiencies introduced by having two different fleets with two different sets of crews, nor losing a few pax in capacity per flight (especially considering MAX-7 has grown).

Yes, many airlines do mixed fleets, but WN has really optimized itself around the single fleet concept.

I'm sure someone in WN is cranking the numbers with a lot more detail than we have here, but given the CEO says a switch to something other than 737 is unforeseen, I think we know where things are going to end up.

longhauler wrote:

In my opinion, I am not saying Southwest will buy the A220, but ... I would certainly hope they gave it thought.

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of due diligence, or as the CEO says, doing it out of a sense of duty.

barney captain wrote:

You have authors writing widely speculative articles based on a industry standard practice of "looking" - not buying - because it can somehow be tied to the MAX. These visits happen regularly, and wouldn't even be newsworthy without some ridiculous spin to the MAX.

In spite of that and the glaringly obvious point that Kelly has repeated explained it and has said "we're not buying anything but the 737 for the foreseeable future", with have a thread with "28.000 views and 200 comments" that seem to continue to ignore those facts.

It seems some are able to foresee things the CEO himself cannot foresee, and like to discuss events that might come into existence in the gap between the unforeseeable and perpetuity, which my dictionary defines as "endless or indefinitely long duration or existence; eternity".

So, here we have some people who promote the idea that WN may buy something other than 737, an idea that the CEO says lies in the gap between the unforeseeable and eternity.

I feel pretty comfortable in my position.

You are wasting your breath.because all the A220 fanboys know the WN CEO was lying when he said there would be "no new fleet types in the near future. " What else could be the explanation?

seanpmassey wrote:

But there are two things that could eventually make SWA order something besides 737s. First, SWA's size puts their business, and their investors, at risk of an airworthyness directive putting them out of business. At their size, a single fleet type is a huge risk. Yes, they're are profitable and optimized around that fleet type. But how long would they remain profitable if there was another 737 grounding that impacted NGs? Or what would happen in a few years if there were more MAXes in their fleet?

Revelation wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

WN operated 513 B737-700 with 143 PAX at 31" seat pitch.
They could fit 140-145 PAX at 31" seat pitch on A220-300.

Yet if we're now talking about buying new, MAX-7 is a two row stretch over the NG-7 so add 12 more pax for 155, or stick to 150 pax with more comfort and additional payload-range.

ewt340 wrote:

They decided to fitted MAX7 with 150 seats. Currently they only have 30 aircraft in order. Could easily converted to MAX8 instead.

ewt340 wrote:

Interestingly enough, regional airlines like Republic Airways also order significant amount of A220-300.

rrbsztk wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Interestingly enough, regional airlines like Republic Airways also order significant amount of A220-300.

IIRC the Republic Airways A220 order was for Frontier. However when they sold Frontier they kept the A220 order.

Gulfstream500 wrote:

rrbsztk wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Interestingly enough, regional airlines like Republic Airways also order significant amount of A220-300.

IIRC the Republic Airways A220 order was for Frontier. However when they sold Frontier they kept the A220 order.

I have not heard anything of that order in foverver. Any information on an entry into service date???

Additionally, if they have kept the order, are they going to operate under their own brand???

737max8 wrote:

So....where is the A220 mockup in WN colors?

KMCOFlyer wrote:

737max8 wrote:

So....where is the A220 mockup in WN colors?

Not my work, but here you go.

AirwayBill wrote:

KMCOFlyer wrote:

737max8 wrote:

So....where is the A220 mockup in WN colors?

Not my work, but here you go.

This looks amazing. And the wait won't be too long!