SWA buys ATA II

[50Pesos]

Flying a 737 to Hawaii is not the most cost efficiant use of a an aircraft that size. The seat mile costs are much higher than a 767 or 757. Also the airplane is not being very productive. It makes one round trip and has little time left over for any more productivity from the airplane. I think one of the reasons SWA is so succesful is because they get very good productivity out of their aircraft. Also, I'm guessing an airline the size of SWA would have a a lot of frequent flyers in their program. Hawaii is the number one choice of frequent flyers and if you start hauling frequent flyers on a 737 you have little left over for revenue pax.
That's my theory anyway!

SWA Rapid rewards only has so many seats in a certain price catagory available, to prevent this already.

 

[MDWCrashPad]

Three hour ETOPs is not something that you just begin to fly. The authority takes years to get. It requires special aircraft certification, an ETOPs approved maintenance program, crew certification, and a reliabiliity history.

Often ETOPS planes will have additional or different equipment on them. Reliability of certain components is watched very closely and detailed records are kept.

In order to get two hour ETOPS you must fly 90 minute ETOPS for a while. Engine and APU reliability data is collected. Once you do 90 minute ETOPS for a while you can begin 2 hour ETOPS. Again, data is collected. If your reliability is not sustained you will lose the 2 hour ETOPS. That happened to Pan Am around 1990 using the Pratt engines on the Airbus 310s. That increased their fuel costs by 40 million per year on the ETOPS routes.

Once you have successfully done the 2 hour ETOPS you can go for the 3 hour ETOPS. The entire process takes years. It is more of an airline as a whole procedure than an airplane specific certification. If you have been flying 767 three hour ETOPS you can get 757 or 737 three hour ETOPS in less than a year. The FAA would have already been monitoring your ETOPS maintenance program.

America West did not have any 2 hour ETOPS routes to build into the 3 hour ETOPS. That is why they were never able to get it on their own. They went to the FAA and tried to get them to agree to a simulated 2 hour program going cross country. The FAA told them that if they had a problem they could not overfly good airports to fly to their simulated ETOPS airports.

Everytime an ETOPS component breaks the data goes into the mix and you are a little closer to losing that certification. The smaller the ETOPS fleet the greater the component failure figures into the equation. The larger the ETOPS fleet, the more components that can break. And there had better be no paperwork errors, especially for the three hour ETOPS.

Basically, it is an extended process. Some of this information may be a little out of date since it has been a few years since I helped on setting up an ETOPS program.

 

[Freight Dog]

You're right, a 737 doesn't have room for extra cargo. It can't always carry the baggage of it's passengers checked in and at times it has to block seats just to carry enough fuel to make the flight.

Not true on the -700.

Full cabin, usual load of bags, ETOPS fuel, and blast off out of SNA (5700 ft runway) at max gross to Hawaii... no sweat!

 

[Erndogg]

Not true on the -700.

Full cabin, usual load of bags, ETOPS fuel, and blast off out of SNA (5700 ft runway) at max gross to Hawaii... no sweat!

Boeing did not design the 700 for ETOPS routes. What AQ,AK and ATA have done is take an INTERCONTENTAL aircraft and started running the APU the whole flight to fly over water.
That's why Boeing came out with the -900ER.

 

[Dan Roman]

Not true on the -700.

Full cabin, usual load of bags, ETOPS fuel, and blast off out of SNA (5700 ft runway) at max gross to Hawaii... no sweat!

You guys fly it, not me. So I stand corrected! I'm just basing it on pilots telling me on days when the jetstream is 100kts on the nose (common in the winter) you have to block seats or limit bags.

 

[Freight Dog]

Boeing did not design the 700 for ETOPS routes. What AQ,AK and ATA have done is take an INTERCONTENTAL aircraft and started running the APU the whole flight to fly over water.
That's why Boeing came out with the -900ER.

-900ER doesn't have the short-field performance that the -700 does. NG's rock though!

BTW... we run APU until out of ETOPS airspace.

 

[Erndogg]

-900ER doesn't have the short-field performance that the -700 does. NG's rock though!

BTW... we run APU until out of ETOPS airspace.

I guess the 900ER would not work out of SNA for you guys. How's that -800 I see you guys have been using??

 

[Alcatraz]

Not true on the -700.

Full cabin, usual load of bags, ETOPS fuel, and blast off out of SNA (5700 ft runway) at max gross to Hawaii... no sweat!

Are your -700s equipped with 24k engines? And yes, I understand those engines can be "selected" to have various thrust limits (SWA's -700s were changed from 22k engines to 24k engines a few years ago... I think it's just a software or simple hardware change).

And isn't it the -800 that has weight issues? I think this has been ATA's problem on the Hawaii routes... they don't have -700s. Kind of ironic, isn't it... a smaller airplane may actually do a better job on a long haul route?

 

[On Your Six]

If SWA bought Aloha then it could fly those flights. Imagine how many flights it could fly between all of the Hawaiian airports and SoCal. Five daily flights from OGG to LAX. Three daily flights between HNL and BUR and on and on. I wonder if that is a consideration?

I presume SWA has already looked at Aloha given the fleet commonality and gate requirements - something must not be favorable if SWA hasn't already acted on it...

 

[Green Banana]

Alaska and WestJet fly the -800 with no problem out of Lihue and HNL, LIH is 6,500.
As for the power we use 27K with a SFP (short field performance) package from Boeing.

27k Flaps 25 takeoff is like an elevator. Fun stuff

 

[Reebo]

You guys fly it, not me. So I stand corrected! I'm just basing it on pilots telling me on days when the jetstream is 100kts on the nose (common in the winter) you have to block seats or limit bags.

You're thinking of the Airbus :laugh:

 

[Dan Roman]

You're thinking of the Airbus :laugh:

Good One!
And just for the record I'm not bashing you guys. My AQ freinds all lament that you could use bigger aircraft. That said, I think Yucaipa has proven they are in for the long haul and I think it's just a matter of time before you replace the 73's with something bigger.

 

[tzskipper]

Does anyone know the date(s) of the next LUV Board of Directors meeting?

Skipper

 

[Freight Dog]

Are your -700s equipped with 24k engines? And yes, I understand those engines can be "selected" to have various thrust limits (SWA's -700s were changed from 22k engines to 24k engines a few years ago... I think it's just a software or simple hardware change).

And isn't it the -800 that has weight issues? I think this has been ATA's problem on the Hawaii routes... they don't have -700s. Kind of ironic, isn't it... a smaller airplane may actually do a better job on a long haul route?

24k is the "default" setting on our -700's, but we have 26k bump available to us for ETOPS departures out of SNA, and RWY 9 out of SAN. We used 26k out of BUR as well when we flew there.

Yeah, it's the -800 that has weight issues, but usually only out of relatively short field. We operate one between OGG and SMF, no problems from what I hear - I steer clear of it since it doesn't fly to SoCal.

 

[FlyinGuy]

TZ,
I believe the next SWA BOD meeting is sometime this week...Maybe on Wednesday.