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

 

[waveflyer]

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.



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



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

Then the shoe fits-
I didn't have time to write a short post


Good answers though

 

[slaquer5]

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

Same outcome. I was working out and did talk to text

Either way it comes out the same

 

[tankerhead]

Same outcome. I was working out and did talk to text

Either way it comes out the same

Take this to the next level and try a drunk booty-call talk to text.

Awesomeness will ensue.

 

[BirdCatcher]

Friend back from a PC last week and noted that this old rumor is back on the heels of horizon financial success. Both Dallas and Baltimore check airman chatting about it.
Apparently SWA lawyers were up in canada

I'm a bit bored with this particular subject bc it's really old. Was there in early 2000's. Again with the Frontier proposal in '09, now again 5 years later. It is still risky from a public perception standpoint.
Great plane. Great numbers.
Next gen version just announced
http://www.bombardier.com/content/b...showcasesq400nextgenaircra.bombardiercom.html

I'd fly it in a heartbeat. A good turboprop schedule and that type flying can be a great life- and most pilots here do talk about blended rates that pay the same as other SWA pilots- which was always the biggest downer about turboprops- and with up to 86 seats, there are possibilities
As for perception, what's better for communities who aren't getting other mainline service? No service or q400 prop service? Could the Bakersfield's of the world realize that the Q is miles ahead of other turboprops and embrace them?

The conversation's been had
In spades

Found this from '03- http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/print.main?id=1202368

What I enjoy hearing is how lock step Swapa pilots seem to be: great plane, could open up a lot of profitable markets and natural feed into the existing system,.... AND if the SWA logo is on it, we will fly it.
I would love to make that statement actually. Prove that the legacy long con of domestic outsourcing could be turned on its heels

So speculate away
Especially if you've flown it

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...

 

[waveflyer]

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?

 

[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.