Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SW Execs Boast They'll Conquer Delta's ATL w/ Air Tran Merger (& get a/c for Hawaii)

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Im not sold on this ATL is so damm good city. Most of the pax are connectors because DAL and AAI hub there. I mean, is like ATL bigger tham NY? BOS? PHL? population wise? No. How many ATL customers are originating? Travelers hate to connect there too.

SWA is buying a hub and spoke airline but still claims they are not. Yeah right. I see a short term increase of flights for SWA in ATL but over the long term they will realise its just another STL situiation. My .02 worth.
 
ATL is the largest city in the South. Lots of O&D traffic. And AirTran is far from a hub and spoke carrier. Over half of our flights never touch Atlanta.
 
SWA is planning on 175 seats in the -800, I don't think that is cramming seats.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you with the use of the word "cramming."

Perhaps I should say that SWA will put a "a lot of seats" in that plane and that equates to more weight than say an 800 with only 150 seats. More payload equals less fuel at the gate and higher burn getting to the critical point.
 
ATL is the largest city in the South. Lots of O&D traffic. And AirTran is far from a hub and spoke carrier. Over half of our flights never touch Atlanta.

Not according to independant studies. Less than a third is originating. ATL is 33rd on the list in pop, behind ELP, HOU, BWI, DAL, FTW, AUS, JAX, CLT, CMH, SJC, DET, SAT, NY, BOS, PHL, SFO, MEM, SEA, MKE, ect ect ect....

I just dont think its the golden nugget its played out to be. Largest in the south???? Whats the south in your world? Georgia?
 
Sorry, didn't mean to offend you with the use of the word "cramming."

Perhaps I should say that SWA will put a "a lot of seats" in that plane and that equates to more weight than say an 800 with only 150 seats. More payload equals less fuel at the gate and higher burn getting to the critical point.

Apparently you have not seen how many of our passengers came straight from the buffet line!! 200 pound average for pax weight....yeah right! From my calculations the boeing has no trouble lifting the double wides we put in there so weight is not a problem.
 
SWA is buying a hub and spoke airline but still claims they are not. Yeah right. I see a short term increase of flights for SWA in ATL but over the long term they will realise its just another STL situiation. My .02 worth.

WN is the biggest carrier in STL. If ATL turns out like STL......... I'm down with that!

Gup
 
All very interesting moves by Southwest.
What bamboozles me is that they are aggressively moving away from their successful business model by:

-Acquiring other airlines
-Acquiring other aircraft types (717s and talk of a "larger" airplane as referenced by OP's article)
-Moving into primary / largest airports in a metro area (EWR, ATL, DEN) instead of focusing on reliever airports

Southwest is going to be just another legacy carrier in 10 or 15 years with no first class.
 
All very interesting moves by Southwest.
What bamboozles me is that they are aggressively moving away from their successful business model by:

-Acquiring other airlines
-Acquiring other aircraft types (717s and talk of a "larger" airplane as referenced by OP's article)
-Moving into primary / largest airports in a metro area (EWR, ATL, DEN) instead of focusing on reliever airports

Southwest is going to be just another legacy carrier in 10 or 15 years with no first class.

A company that does not adapt to the changing world it operates will not survive. SWA is just changing within the world it operates.
 
A company that does not adapt to the changing world it operates will not survive. SWA is just changing within the world it operates.

What's funny is it's "changing" to adapt to the world is supposedly so despised just a few short years ago....
 
All very interesting moves by Southwest.
What bamboozles me is that they are aggressively moving away from their successful business model by:

-Acquiring other airlines
-Acquiring other aircraft types (717s and talk of a "larger" airplane as referenced by OP's article)
-Moving into primary / largest airports in a metro area (EWR, ATL, DEN) instead of focusing on reliever airports

Southwest is going to be just another legacy carrier in 10 or 15 years with no first class.

A company that does not adapt to the changing world it operates will not survive. SWA is just changing within the world it operates.

both very good points, unfortunately i fear the first statement is more accurate than the second. wish it i didn't, but i do. for the first 30 yrs we adapted all from within, now our leaders think we have to go outside to adapt. same thing that has happened at the legacy's. interesting waters ahead.
 
If SWA puts 175 on a 800 it will fly with a lot of open seats almost year round excluding maybe the bay area
 
Not according to independant studies. Less than a third is originating. ATL is 33rd on the list in pop, behind ELP, HOU, BWI, DAL, FTW, AUS, JAX, CLT, CMH, SJC, DET, SAT, NY, BOS, PHL, SFO, MEM, SEA, MKE, ect ect ect....

I just dont think its the golden nugget its played out to be. Largest in the south???? Whats the south in your world? Georgia?

What should have been said...METRO Atlanta is one of the most populated AREAS of the south.

The city limits of Atlanta are actually pretty small. It simply cannot annex any more of the surrounding municipalities...(nobody wants to be included in the city's problems). As far as why it would be a bit more of the golden nugget than you think, I suggest you read the "Economy" section of the Atlanta page on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta

The population of Atlanta is VERY misleading. "As of 2009[update] Atlanta had an estimated population of about 540,922 people. Its metropolitan area is the ninth largest in the country, inhabited by more than 5.4 million people. The Atlanta Combined Statistical Area has a population approaching six million, making it the most populous metropolis in the Southeastern United States." -Wikipedia.com (2010)

Six million people are just a few more than ELP. ;)
 
What should have been said...METRO Atlanta is one of the most populated AREAS of the south.

The city limits of Atlanta are actually pretty small. It simply cannot annex any more of the surrounding municipalities...(nobody wants to be included in the city's problems). As far as why it would be a bit more of the golden nugget than you think, I suggest you read the "Economy" section of the Atlanta page on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta

The population of Atlanta is VERY misleading. "As of 2009[update] Atlanta had an estimated population of about 540,922 people. Its metropolitan area is the ninth largest in the country, inhabited by more than 5.4 million people. The Atlanta Combined Statistical Area has a population approaching six million, making it the most populous metropolis in the Southeastern United States." -Wikipedia.com (2010)

Six million people are just a few more than ELP. ;)

Unless it has changed in the last few years "metro Atlanta" even includes a couple of counties in eastern Alabama. Sounds dumb, but is/was true.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top