Grow Baby GROW! WN/AAI

[RedDogC130]

Be interesting to see SkyWest and their prorate flying either get AXED or expand vastly.

It can't expand under the swa pilot contract....no codeshare allowed

 

[Crzipilot]

Not yet.........

 

[MILPILOT17]

Never!

 

[Skybus]

Time will tell. This one WILL be different. GK has stated that in addition to the smaller markets that we DO plan to continue, there are MANY more similar in nature particuarly out west. IE.. Jackson Hole. IF this works as planned there WILL be pleanty of growth. Grow baby Grow.

 

[OldManPilot]

Just bringing the AAI aircraft up to the WN utilization will open up about an additional 10-15 % growth.

 

[fiel12]

We're acquiring Airtran. Airtran is essentially 25% the size of SWA. Hence the immediate 25% growth. Get it?

In the wake of the Airtran acquisition, us whiny F/Os are left with a monstrously large company (700 aircraft) that will be pretty dang resistant to growth. For example, if we were to grow 10% each year, here's what we would need in net aircraft deliveries:

2012: 70 net aircraft (770 total airplanes)
2013: 77 net aircraft (847)
2014: 84 net aircraft (931)
etc. etc.

Possible? I guess anything's possible. Likely? Umm..no.

And to put the 50 737s Airtran has on order in perspective: If every single one of the aircraft were all delivered immediately upon conclusion of the acquisition, it would only represent 7% growth.

So...until I hear about 787 orders and far international, don't expect me to get too excited about this huge growth potential.

Exactly.

 

[texman]

Just bringing the AAI aircraft up to the WN utilization will open up about an additional 10-15 % growth.

Brother you hit the nail on the head. A lot of people need to see that.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

not exactly....

Exactly.

.....growth does not equate to how many A/Cs are on property. That was a good, but very linear outlook. With the addition of AAI and better aircraft utilization, there is the potential for substantial growth.

SWA is not the largest domestic carrier in the USA, but they carry the most passengers, offer more seats/ASMs. Growth and profit come from how many flights and seats you offer on those flights, not how many pieces of equipment you own or have on property.

If you equate upgrade by strictly how many pilots per A/C, your view will not be accurate. It is a good start. However, the more A/Cs and flights to cover, you will need more reserves and pilots to cover training, vacation, etc. to maintain the operation.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

correct

Brother you hit the nail on the head. A lot of people need to see that.

I believe you are on the money with that.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

Keep it that way

It can't expand under the swa pilot contract....no codeshare allowed

SWA could hit the smaller markets with the B717, without having a contract regional. You can argue that with a regional SWA could cover more markets and make more money. Once you go down that road, the company could replace mainline flying with contract regional flying. Plus, you do not have the same quality control of the product.

 

[Green Banana]

SWA could hit the smaller markets with the B717, without having a contract regional.

OK, but to do that, the pilots of the smaller 717 need to be paid less than the larger 737. Are the 737 boys at LUV going to agree to a lower pay scale to fly the 717?

 

[Candide]

Pilots per aircraft has had a historically low variance at SWA. While there's certain to be an adjustment, I doubt it the new ratio will trump the gold standard of aircraft on property.

Another thing you're forgetting: pilots per aircraft will probably decrease quite a few point on the AAI side once the CBAs are merged. Decrease in pilots-per-aircraft is shrinkage (Yes, I said "shrinkage"!). When I saw a recent AAI seniority list, I was AMAZED at the number of folks out on Military. Let's face it, a lot of AAI FOs are on extended military deployment because the pay and bennies are MUCH better with Uncle Sam.

 

[Wesb737fo]

So.....no increase in pay to fly the larger -800's, it wouldn't seem logical to pay less for the smaller 717 ( maybe 122 seats).

 

[OldManPilot]

OK, but to do that, the pilots of the smaller 717 need to be paid less than the larger 737. Are the 737 boys at LUV going to agree to a lower pay scale to fly the 717?

Talk about fishing for a comment. Please go back to your Regional forum.

 

[27 driver]

OK, but to do that, the pilots of the smaller 717 need to be paid less than the larger 737. Are the 737 boys at LUV going to agree to a lower pay scale to fly the 717?

One thing to keep in mind is that the 717 in all coach class has just as many seats as the 737-500's. Will you propose a lower rate for the 500's as well.

 

[Green Banana]

Relax Francis,
I am just pointing out that the 717 may not be so great if you have to pay the crews more to operate them. Pay has historically been tied to aircraft size. At Alaska, the pilots across the board got a raise when the -900 was introduced. I guess LUV is not going to follow that logic.

If a 717 in all coach class truly seats as many as the 737-500 then why even operate the 717 fleet? If it is the same size, How is this a better tool to serve the smaller markets?

 

[nightfr8er]

If you see a coyote in the alley behind your house, throw him a slice of pizza. That might just save your neighbor's loudazz poodle that is stuck outside every night. See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee

"Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are! That's some funny Sh!!t."

 

[texman]

relax francis,
i am just pointing out that the 717 may not be so great if you have to pay the crews more to operate them. Pay has historically been tied to aircraft size. At alaska, the pilots across the board got a raise when the -900 was introduced. I guess luv is not going to follow that logic.

If a 717 in all coach class truly seats as many as the 737-500 then why even operate the 717 fleet? If it is the same size, how is this a better tool to serve the smaller markets?

we are a high frequency point to point airline. It will work just fine.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

no..

Relax Francis,
I am just pointing out that the 717 may not be so great if you have to pay the crews more to operate them. Pay has historically been tied to aircraft size. At Alaska, the pilots across the board got a raise when the -900 was introduced. I guess LUV is not going to follow that logic.

SWA has already agreed to a pay bump across the board for all pilots to allow the -800 to fly or to convert the existing orders to the 175-seat jet.

If a 717 in all coach class truly seats as many as the 737-500 then why even operate the 717 fleet? If it is the same size, How is this a better tool to serve the smaller markets?

The 717 is more efficient than the 737 and should be cheaper to operate, unless the MX costs get out of hand with parts. Pilot wages are just a small part of the cost equation. I saw some of the SWA projections with the larger 737 and the acquisition of AAI. Their projections put SWA as the second lowest cost operator.

SWA and SWAPA will play it smart and keep one pay rate for all equipment. It is a win/win for all parties.

 

[Skybus]

And what do you think the likely growth scenario was in terms of "organic growth"? Factor in retirements... and I can assure you are going to have a greatly enhanced QOL in every facet of your career. Who knows someday may even be able to guy GL a brew in Nigeria. On second thought...