모두
← Back to Squawk list
Southwest to sell off 717s.
If you're looking for a deal on a well-maintained Boeing 717, you may be in luck. (www.aero-news.net) 기타...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Duh! WN has always been an all 737 fleet...what makes you think they will change now? I agree that it may be for the slots in ATL and wherever WN doesn't already have gates.
@ Richard Judy: Actually, Southwest has not always been an all 737 fleet. They've operated DC9s/MD80s previously, as well as leased 727-200s. The DC9s/MD80s came through an acquisition, but were phased out with the introduction of the 737-300/-500.
Going to be pedantic here..
@Joshua Smith,
You're right; they used to ALWAYS avoid major airports, with 2 of them being the exception: SFO, and LAX. They flew to SFO in the late 90s/2000s before pulling out and moving across the bay to OAK. They kept PHX, LAX, and LAS because they were guaranteed the closest gates in proximity to the runway. If you notice at SFO, they have those.
They only expanded to some of the other cities because of buying/merging with other airlines. they gained LGA through the slots that ATA had; they gained EWR per ATA and terms of the UAL/COA merger. They bought TRS, so they got MKE and ATL. They smelled blood in DEN, when FFT and UAL were having issues. If those two weren't in any strife, they would have avoided DEN. Double that with IAD, in relation to UAL. Wash/rinse/repeat with PHL and PIT. USA was having issues, nearly went under, so SWA moved in. The only one that can't be explained is BOS. Only thing I can think of is to gain on the shuttles along the corridor.
Depending on where their gates are, they could still fit these in with their business model; frequency would be the problem. Keep in mind that while one of the 3 big things in their model was to avoid major airports, they still keep to the other 2: point-to-point service, and the 20-minute turnaround. If they can work it at those major airports, they may still keep it in line.
@Joshua Smith,
You're right; they used to ALWAYS avoid major airports, with 2 of them being the exception: SFO, and LAX. They flew to SFO in the late 90s/2000s before pulling out and moving across the bay to OAK. They kept PHX, LAX, and LAS because they were guaranteed the closest gates in proximity to the runway. If you notice at SFO, they have those.
They only expanded to some of the other cities because of buying/merging with other airlines. they gained LGA through the slots that ATA had; they gained EWR per ATA and terms of the UAL/COA merger. They bought TRS, so they got MKE and ATL. They smelled blood in DEN, when FFT and UAL were having issues. If those two weren't in any strife, they would have avoided DEN. Double that with IAD, in relation to UAL. Wash/rinse/repeat with PHL and PIT. USA was having issues, nearly went under, so SWA moved in. The only one that can't be explained is BOS. Only thing I can think of is to gain on the shuttles along the corridor.
Depending on where their gates are, they could still fit these in with their business model; frequency would be the problem. Keep in mind that while one of the 3 big things in their model was to avoid major airports, they still keep to the other 2: point-to-point service, and the 20-minute turnaround. If they can work it at those major airports, they may still keep it in line.
So you spend $1.4 billion for 52 737s and a handfull of new cities? I don't think we're getting the whole story. Keep in mind, airTran served 38 cities that Southwest didn't, at least 3 have had service discontinuance announced, with likely more to come. Gary Kelly would be a fool to spend that much money to throw away 88 perfectly useable airplanes (which would compliment Southwest's 737 fleet), many of the 38 cities not previously served by Southwest. Kelly has said previously that there is enourmous potential with the 717, why all of a sudden the 180? It's a great plane.
I've always thought that the 717s could be used out here on the West Coast to open new routes to smaller cities, or on routes that consistantly undersell a 737 but would fill a 717, freeing up the 737s for increased frequency on more lucrative and profitable markets between key business cities, since Gary Kelly claims that Southwest is trying to lure business travels. I'd deploy some of the 717s between the SF Area and the LA Area, New York and Boston, and New York and Atlanta, interstate Texas, Chicago and New York, and other short haul, high frequency markets, the other 717s would serve smaller cities from hub airports.
I don't like the way CEO Kelly is taking Southwest. It would not surprise me that one day, the success of Southwest comes to an end and they start experiencing trouble like the other legacy carriers (which Southwest is a part of, they're not a LCC anymore, and they can't be, because they've changed they once successful business model).
Its' definitely not how I'd run Southwest, that's for sure.
I've always thought that the 717s could be used out here on the West Coast to open new routes to smaller cities, or on routes that consistantly undersell a 737 but would fill a 717, freeing up the 737s for increased frequency on more lucrative and profitable markets between key business cities, since Gary Kelly claims that Southwest is trying to lure business travels. I'd deploy some of the 717s between the SF Area and the LA Area, New York and Boston, and New York and Atlanta, interstate Texas, Chicago and New York, and other short haul, high frequency markets, the other 717s would serve smaller cities from hub airports.
I don't like the way CEO Kelly is taking Southwest. It would not surprise me that one day, the success of Southwest comes to an end and they start experiencing trouble like the other legacy carriers (which Southwest is a part of, they're not a LCC anymore, and they can't be, because they've changed they once successful business model).
Its' definitely not how I'd run Southwest, that's for sure.
Don't foget the 737 delivery orders from Airtrans.......those 85 or so slots pay back the buy cost.
Southwest's business model has proven that ONE aircraft type, with identical training requirements for all pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, etc. is most efficient. It's one of the things that keeps their overall overhead low and gives them the breathing room to serve otherwise-expensive airports.
If Southwest keeps the 717's, then their pilots, F/A's, mechanics, etc. will all have to be trained (and regularly re-trained), certified (and re-certified) for TWO mostly-unrelated aircraft types. Also, spares for two aircraft types have to be stocked at every medium-to-large airport Southwest serves.
Those requirements impose costs which will have to be borne by every Southwest customer.