[QUOTE=Imeneo]I would prefer that southwest revise their horrific boarding scheme first before they concentrate on further expansion. From personal experience alone I really don't think the "choose your own seat" philosophy actually gets the plane off the ground faster... especially since everyone boarding the plane does not take the first open seat.... but rather seem to pick and choose preferred seating which holds up the line way up the jetway on a full flight.


I agree..years ago, when I was a lowly military flyer, and had to fly SWA as pax, I was elbowed in the ribs by an 80 y/o lady during the boarding process...

That old "blue hair" took my backwards facing bulkhead seat...

 

Went to Orlando and back from Long Island and couldn't agree with you more.

SWA has a lot to offer, but their boarding plan isn't one of them, IMO.

 

Really no alternative to the boarding process when there is no assigned seating.

 

Line everyone up abreast in the concourse, the gate agents will have whistles......

 

Daytripper has got it right here, if SWA trys to compete in a market that is owned by the legacies they are taking a huge gamble and stepping totally outside of their current business model. They would not be competitive in cost initially because of the huge expense it would take to set up an international infrastructure, not to mention that their labor cost are the highest in the industry and that they are gradualy losing the "fuel hedge" advantage they have enjoyed recently. Throw in aircrew additional training, FAA training approval, additonal sim time, etc to the cost list that daytripper started.

 

Not much risk by taking baby steps over a period of time. SWA is in a great position to compete with say West Jet of Canada to the north, and other LCCs to the south of the border.


Gate space, landing fees, and ground handling is sometimes cheaper at various locations outside of the US.

With the exception of one set of proving runs for ETOPs, Class II Nav, and MNPS, additional training could be covered during recurrent training.

Its like digging for diamonds, mining for gold or drilling for oil... you have to take risks. The rewards can outweigh the risks involved.

A separate extended overwater ETOPS fleet would be required. No sense in carrying four heavy rafts around for no reason. Perhaps SWA could cut a deal with ATA since they are flying to HNL with their aircraft.

SWA's aircraft would have to be equipped approriately for overwater crossings too. The NGs I fly have two FMCs and two GPSs, but have only have one FMS for the two FMCs. We have no HF nor ACARS either.

 

SWA's boarding process is designed for their benefit, not for the passenger.

Recently flew them to Florida and back. The boarding process was the ONLY thing I didn't like about the flight.

They run a very good airline.

 

West Jet tried this in Canada. They are still doing it, just very limited. They just couldnt compete with Air Canada. AC was just to well established, more routes, codesharing with United and US air. I imagine if Southwest tries to expand international they are going to get relentless competition from AA, UA, CA, NWA, Delta, US air. Southwest will NOT have the same sucsess internationaly as domesticly.

 

I am not saying that SWA cannot pull it off, or that it will be unprofitable for them, but what I am saying is that SWA overtime is becoming much more like the competition than they had originally planned to.

Long term, that and the fuel hedges running out, will leave SWA without the advantages needed to force themselves into new markets.

 

Hahah...well SWA gets the job done and they are still making profits...you can't complain about that!