SWA pilots ?

[Mea25000]

Do you guys have a rate for 800's or would it just pay the same as the 300's and 700's?

 

[shootr]

It would have to be negotiated. It'd probably pay the same (other than the fact that an 800 would probably be flying much more productive long haul days than the average 300/700).

shootr

 

[Daddy]

Range on a 700 is actually better...800 just takes more people

 

[jball2]

True, but because of it's size it would not be as efficient on the short hauls.

 

[shootr]

Our long haul flights are nearly always full. Short haul - not so much. So...a bigger A/C fits long hauls better. If we had it, it would be our go-to plane for stuff like MHT-PHX, BWI-LAX, LAS-MCO, etc. Our trips pay much better when flying like this is included. If we kept a common type, a typical day would be one long haul and a couple of short hauls (after a plane change).

shootr

 

[Green Banana]

True, but because of it's size it would not be as efficient on the short hauls.

WTF????????

Or, it will be more profitable. If you fill every seat in both airplanes, the increase in revenue on the 800 far exceeds the slight loss in efficiency by using a larger aircraft. You need the right tool for the job, and in this industry that is matching capacity with demand. If you are leaving people behind in your full 700, that is money lost.

 

[Daddy]

I have never understood the thought behind not wanting 800's. Some have said it would require another FA, but that is only over 150 pax...am I missing something?

 

[vtwo]

Since SWA bought the ATA certificate, ATA had 800's I think, so that would make the 800 a perfect fit.
ATA Airlines had Etops, world wide, and North Atlantic MNPS
It wouldn't take much to get those extra perks up and running again.

 

[another cfii]

Quick question for LUV pilots. Before I send my passport for renewal, do your gate agents require a CASS check even if i sit in the back? Sometimes they want to see my stuff even they'll put me in cabin, sometimes not. I just want to make sure 1) I have my passport when I need it, and 2) CASS won't red flagged me cuz my passport is due.

Thanks!

 

[Green Banana]

I have never understood the thought behind not wanting 800's. Some have said it would require another FA, but that is only over 150 pax...am I missing something?

The 737-800 is set up for 189 pax in a one class configuration. Required FA's are based on the amount of seats on the aircraft, not actual passengers. LUV would have to add another FA, or offer one hell of a lot of leg room.

 

[StopNTSing]

I have never understood the thought behind not wanting 800's. Some have said it would require another FA, but that is only over 150 pax...am I missing something?

Three letters: M-D-W. Ask any former ATA guys how well the -800 did out of there to the west coast. That increased seat capacity comes at the cost of decreased performance. No free lunch.

Also our current contract says basically that other larger 737s, if operated by the company, would be paid at a 5% increase over current rates of pay. Curiously, this language appears to be missing from our new TA....

 

[Daddy]

Thanks...I had no idea it was the seats and not the pax themselves. Of course, how hard would it be to add one FA per flight that has an 800...I guess about as hard as buying a computer program that can add and subtract in currencies other than the American dollar since we cant cross the border yet either.

 

[Green Banana]

Three letters: M-D-W. Ask any former ATA guys how well the -800 did out of there to the west coast. That increased seat capacity comes at the cost of decreased performance. No free lunch.

-800 seems to work well for ALK. Full load of fuel and pax out of LIH (6500FT). We did have to do some tweaking by getting the SFP (short field performance). Flaps 25, 27K bump thrust. SNA is admittedly restricted at 5700FT and the noise thing.

 

[737tanker]

I have never understood the thought behind not wanting 800's. Some have said it would require another FA, but that is only over 150 pax...am I missing something?

I was in upgrade class in 2000 and the VP of FltOps was asked why no -800s. He said that the 4th F/A was not the issue. The issue was fleet usage. If a full -300 or -700 had a mechanical and had to be replaced by a -500 you would only bump 15 passengers. If a full -800 had a mechanical and was replaced by a -700 you would bump 50 passengers. The way SWA operates you could handle 15 bumped passengers, but not 50. So if SWA ever got -800s they would not be interchangeable with the rest of the fleet.

 

[mt2]

So if SWA ever got -800s they would not be interchangeable with the rest of the fleet.

Then again, if all they did was run back and forth from the West Coast to Hawai'i it might be a great fit.