Decade long rumor of SWA buying Q400's back

[freightdogfred]

This is the best rumor we can come up with?

Flown it.... I'll stick with Boeings

Don't see it fitting in with our "start strong" initiatives... MX department would see lots of growth though...

Finally, someone who actually knows the airplane. It's a very expensive airplane to maintain.

 

[BirdCatcher]

That's good to know

All I seem to hear is vague- but financial success seems to follow the Q-
Is it not??

You say it's not the answer for Amarillo??

What is?

Is it the answer for Amarillo? Sure... For SWA? Probably not

Yes, there is some financial success with the Q400, but there has also been financial failure (I'm sure bombardier doesn't boast that in its literature)


Pros:
Solid airframe and PW150A is bulletproof
Fast
Reasonably comfortable
Good mountain performance
Short t/o & landing performance
Fuel burn (low compared to jets but high compared to other turboprops)
Frees up allocated 737s


Cons
Other than airframe and power plant, lots of MX issues in between (thanks Thales) for example... Apu, landing gear, boots, deice control valves, doors, pec, ANVS
High acquisition costs (at one point lease rate was comparable to -700)
Requires large parts inventory
Lightning magnet
Props are for boats (customers either love it or hate it)
Alt SEL
Non vnav vnav


The 86 seat version seems to be a compromise since for a while Bombardier proposing the q400x 90 seats. The problem I see with this 86 seat is where do you put the bags? They remove the fwd bag compartment and reduce the aft to
365 sq ft. If those people packing for Caribbean vacations (connect through hobby) might as well mail the bags.

We would need around 1 spare per 15 airframes (how many spares do we keep with 600 737s) and 12 hour/day utilization won't happen while maintaining a competitive dispatch reliability and completion factor. Part of this is just being a turboprop (more moving parts) and part is design flaws.

I hate to say it But PCL is right regarding the economics and crew pay. Anywhere close to our pay rates and the Q400 isn't a viable option. You won't get the same utilization as 737 to reduce CASM and the airplane economics are based on crew salaries in the 75-80k CA, 45-50k FO and two FAs at 35k @ 5.5 crew per airplane.

On paper to an accountant it's a win but it wouldn't operate as advertised... Oh crap I guess we are getting Q400s.

 

[waveflyer]

Haha great post! Very informative

(Even if blended rates seems confusing to you)

Very good post
And like I said - boring at this point-
I think bubba said it well, though

Swa logo= SWA pilots

And utilization gets into technology gets into I have lost my mind over these latest embargoes and have little confidence we can operate anything more complex than what we're tackling right now

 

[fr8doggie]

Wave: blended rates. How many current SWAPA pilots are willing to take a pay cut in order to achieve what you posted previously (~$187/hr)? Other SWAPA guys chime in please.

Some FDX guys want to do the same to bring 757 rates up to widebody. No way will I vote for a pay cut to do that.

 

[waveflyer]

Wave: blended rates. How many current SWAPA pilots are willing to take a pay cut in order to achieve what you posted previously (~$187/hr)? Other SWAPA guys chime in please.

Some FDX guys want to do the same to bring 757 rates up to widebody. No way will I vote for a pay cut to do that.

And I disagree with you. I think that's short sighted, but it's your call- but to be fair fedex has a different dynamic with having a domestic widebody fleet -
Pilots can get full pay and do the flying they want to do.

As I said before, I would be arguing the same thing if we purchased a widebody, which is just as likely as getting an e190 or Q

And that's the other bit I learned today

The company has been down in Brazil more than they've been in Canada so....

 

[StopNTSing]

For this whole "is SWA going bigger or smaller?" question, I'd definitely hope to see smaller. I'm with Wave on the blended rate thing, and simply put, if we go smaller we'll buy a whole lot more left seats than if we go bigger ('cause a 787 and a Q400 each still only require two pilots...and spare me the whole augmented crew thing because that kind of flying is a LONG way off from even the most optimistic koolie wet-dreams around here.) It's the most plausible way for Gary to make good on his "50 new markets in North America" claim.

I came from turboprops and would happily go back to flying them tomorrow if they went sufficiently junior in my domicile of choice, with no pay cut.

 

[tankerhead]

Smaller now, increase feed, bigger later. Simple.

 

[fr8doggie]

For this whole "is SWA going bigger or smaller?" question, I'd definitely hope to see smaller. I'm with Wave on the blended rate thing, and simply put, if we go smaller we'll buy a whole lot more left seats than if we go bigger ('cause a 787 and a Q400 each still only require two pilots...and spare me the whole augmented crew thing because that kind of flying is a LONG way off from even the most optimistic koolie wet-dreams around here.) It's the most plausible way for Gary to make good on his "50 new markets in North America" claim.

I came from turboprops and would happily go back to flying them tomorrow if they went sufficiently junior in my domicile of choice, with no pay cut.

You say you are with Wave on the blended rate then you say you'd fly a t-prop if no pay cut. But Wave's example has a current $200/hr Capt. taking a $13/hr paycut.


Also, if you are flying wide bodies int'l you will need more pilots because the layovers tend to be longer. That's not even counting augmented flying.

One rate is great if you start that way and don't have a huge disparity of type. Once you seperate them out it is very difficult to go back.

I seem to recall that UPS's rates were initially imposed by management. Not a prescient idea by the IPA. In fact, I think they were Teamsters when the "one rate" came into being.

Regards,
Fr8doggie

 

[27 driver]

After this whole AAI deal and all the talk focused on nothing more than $$$$$$$. I would be willing to bet that there is a snow ball's chance in hell of SWAPA guys voting yes on a pay cut. It simply won't happen. I agree blended rates are the way to go but it's too late for that. You are asking 8000 pilots to agree to a pay cut so a handful can have a better rate. RIIIIIIIIGHT! It more than likely will be filled by new hires and a handful of FO's with no upgrade in the next decade. There are not very many pilots in the history of aviation that voted yes on a pay cut.

 

[HowardBorden]

After this whole AAI deal and all the talk focused on nothing more than $$$$$$$. I would be willing to bet that there is a snow ball's chance in hell of SWAPA guys voting yes on a pay cut. It simply won't happen. I agree blended rates are the way to go but it's too late for that. You are asking 8000 pilots to agree to a pay cut so a handful can have a better rate. RIIIIIIIIGHT! It more than likely will be filled by new hires and a handful of FO's with no upgrade in the next decade. There are not very many pilots in the history of aviation that voted yes on a pay cut.

Agreed, a blended rate only works in my opinion, if you have similar fleet sizes. I don't want to have a blended rate for say, 50 Q's on property (never gonna happen in my opinion) when that will bring down the rates for the 600 Boeings we have.