Decade long rumor of SWA buying Q400's back

[waveflyer]

So back to it

Would you fly the Q bubba?

 

[pilotpm]

Well, there you go. I guess it was so short-lived, I didn't even remember it.

Bubba

Sorry Bubba, but you're wrong again. ATA and SW entered the code share agreement in December of 2004. It lasted until the demise of ATA in 2008. I should know, I flew several thousand SW pax to Hawaii in those 4 years. Shows a pretty self centered existence if you worked there during this time and you didn't even know it was going on. I seem to remember a couple of SW shareholder reports showing how they were happy with the operation and it was making SW money. I didn't even work for SW and I read those reports.

 

[PCL_128]

Like I said, I haven't. You just haven't been paying attention.

And I'm sure this comes as a shock to you, PCL, but just because you're as far to the left as it's possible to be, and blindly agree with and defend anything proposed by a left-wing politician regardless, doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is that far to the right of center. They're probably just right of you, which really isn't much of a qualifier. I'm actually somewhat right of center on some issues, and somewhat left of center on other issues. That's why I talk about things like "balance," rather than being like you insisting that one side (labor, in your case) should have all the power.

Make no mistake, PCL--you're an extremist. And I'll be the first to say that right-wing extremists are just as dangerous as left-wing extremists. People like you--especially those in positions of power--are dangerous to the majority of Americans who live somewhere near the middle.

Bubba

Bubba, I've never claimed to be anything other than far-left. And I'm proud of it. Your refusal to admit your own far right views is your business.

And I'm all about balance in labor/management relations. We just don't have any in this country. Management has all of the power.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Sorry Bubba, but you're wrong again. ATA and SW entered the code share agreement in December of 2004. It lasted until the demise of ATA in 2008. I should know, I flew several thousand SW pax to Hawaii in those 4 years. Shows a pretty self centered existence if you worked there during this time and you didn't even know it was going on. I seem to remember a couple of SW shareholder reports showing how they were happy with the operation and it was making SW money. I didn't even work for SW and I read those reports.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Sorry; didn't mean to insult you by not remembering much about your airline. While just over three years isn't a huge amount of time, I guess "short-lived" may not have been the best description. Perhaps I should have said "relatively small" instead, and that it wasn't all that visible to me where I was based at the time. According to Wikipedia, at the peak of the agreement, ATA "offered 70 flights per week" shared out of Southwest focus cities, out of over 2,000 flights per day that Southwest flew back then.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

So back to it

Would you fly the Q bubba?

Personally, I'd prefer not to.

Not that I have anything against it, but I like flying the 737, and don't particularly want to transition to a different plane. I've got over 3000 hours in turboprops, and I prefer flying jets. Also, if I understand correctly, using your "blended rates" plan would result in a pay decrease for the majority of the current pilots to support the addition of a smaller plane.

Having said that, if our company's survival depended on flying them to serve smaller markets, I wouldn't be against it. I don't think that's the case, though--at least not anytime in the forseeable future.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

Well, you know business.
You're either growing or declining. There's very little stand still. Market forces just don't work that way once you become a publicly traded company. Your business motive goes from 'profit motive' to 'shareholder wealth maximization'
And that is an important distinction.
We'll grow internationally- but we don't serve an awful lot of america-
Do you see that as a problem or are you ok with not serving them?

The biggest question for you and all SWA pilots is if management wants to have a Q serve the fresno, Knoxville, Montana type markets and the Q is the answer
Would you allow outsourcing to keep from flying that airplane.

My stance has been clear- SWA logo= SWAPA
Thank you for being honest about turboprop flying, but where do you stand? And do you see the slippery slope?

And another- have you been on a Q?

Saab, jet stream - and I'd be with you.
86 seat Q noise canceling with that speed and avionics suite- and mixing in the real type flying- non precision, radio calls, etc- I haven't flown it, but it seems like a great plane pilot wise-
Not sure if prefer a classic over that-
I do really enjoy NG 73 flying- but it's also ILS to ILS- kinda boring

To me though, that's just preference-
It's about unity and not poaching our own flying- bc as I said earlier- the biggest potential benefit would be to keep frequency higher in borderline stations and PRESERVE SWA JOBS.
Mostly our own

 

[scoreboardII]

SWAPA pilots flying leased/contracted Q's... Removes the liability of ownership, fixed costs, etc.

I bet Bombardier would have a wet dream if they had a chance to loan SWA some Q's for a test period.

 

[rumrnr78]

What your "stance" is is irrelevant. Your CEO ain't gonna allow it, and your union is weak. You'll fly -900s for the same rate and you'll like it, and if Qs ever come along, you'll outsource those just like everyone else has, and you'll like that too. Why? Because Gary says so, and you lick his boots.

Didn't you buy your way in to the industry? What a scumbag. Yes, you maybe a SWA pilot now but you can never be honest of your past enjoying the 3/2/1 offering at the bar.

 

[PCL_128]

Didn't you buy your way in to the industry? What a scumbag. Yes, you maybe a SWA pilot now but you can never be honest of your past enjoying the 3/2/1 offering at the bar.

I've never denied my past. And no, I'm not a SWA pilot. I'm an AirTran pilot, and proud of it.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

I'd fly a 1900 if it was owned and operated by main-line. If you wouldn't, you're no better than any legacy pilot responsible for shiny jet syndrome. If Q400's work into WN's plans and SWAPA held firm on keeping all flying in house, we all should be for it. Now, the question would be, do you get a Q400 type or a 737 type? If you buy the Q400 type, will WN give you the 73 type, or do you have to buy that as well?

 

[waveflyer]

From hq

Type requirement will be gone within 3 years

That's their wish at least

 

[slaquer5]

From hq

Type requirement will be gone within 3 years

That's their wish at least

Can do nothing in three years. Over three years to activate the RTO

I will not even get into the autobrake fiasco along that took


Does not have to do it deck parties are vice president I would not put any time even on anything

 

[Flyme]

Can do nothing in three years. Over three years to activate the RTO

I will not even get into the autobrake fiasco along that took


Does not have to do it deck parties are vice president I would not put any time even on anything

What?

Are you attempting to express a thought(s)?

 

[SWA Bubba]

Well, you know business.
You're either growing or declining. There's very little stand still. Market forces just don't work that way once you become a publicly traded company. Your business motive goes from 'profit motive' to 'shareholder wealth maximization'
And that is an important distinction.
We'll grow internationally- but we don't serve an awful lot of america-
Do you see that as a problem or are you ok with not serving them?

I guess I'm okay with "not serving" these cities if we can't do it with our working business model. If that model changes, then ask me again.

The biggest question for you and all SWA pilots is if management wants to have a Q serve the fresno, Knoxville, Montana type markets and the Q is the answer
Would you allow outsourcing to keep from flying that airplane.

No. No outsourcing. We've all seen the result of this.

My stance has been clear- SWA logo= SWAPA
Thank you for being honest about turboprop flying, but where do you stand? And do you see the slippery slope?

And another- have you been on a Q?

Saab, jet stream - and I'd be with you.
86 seat Q noise canceling with that speed and avionics suite- and mixing in the real type flying- non precision, radio calls, etc- I haven't flown it, but it seems like a great plane pilot wise-
Not sure if prefer a classic over that-
I do really enjoy NG 73 flying- but it's also ILS to ILS- kinda boring

To me though, that's just preference-
It's about unity and not poaching our own flying- bc as I said earlier- the biggest potential benefit would be to keep frequency higher in borderline stations and PRESERVE SWA JOBS.
Mostly our own

Never been on the Q. Perhaps it's nicest turboprop out there; I couldn't say. But I do agree with you completely on that premise--SWA logo requires SWAPA pilots.

BTW, for a guy who hassles me for long posts, your post is longer than most of mine. Plus, if you actually used complete sentences like I do, it would be twice as long!

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

Can do nothing in three years. Over three years to activate the RTO

I will not even get into the autobrake fiasco along that took


Does not have to do it deck parties are vice president I would not put any time even on anything

I see you took my advice and went down to the bar!
Good on you