New SWA bases
02-26-2012 | 09:40 PM
#21
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Ok buddy, point made.
But try to look at it this way.....
1) A new base will need crews and airplanes.
2) SWA just got 140 airplanes from AT.
3) Multiple -800's will be on property in the years to come.
4) Replacing 40 classics with 33 -800's is a gain in terms of seats for sale.
- Lets say for example that the 40 classics were all 137 seat airplanes. That would be 5,480 seats total. Now, with 33 737-800's with 175 seats each, that's 5,775 seats total. That's not even including that fact that some of SWA's classics only have 122 seats, which would make the number of seat difference even greater. Also, that's not including the fact that SWA might use some of the 800's on some transcon routes or over water routes (ETOPS) which will cost more to the paying passenger. All in all, it looks like a gain and expansion to me.
Yes, 727C47 was right......the sun is actually shining.
But try to look at it this way.....
1) A new base will need crews and airplanes.
2) SWA just got 140 airplanes from AT.
3) Multiple -800's will be on property in the years to come.
4) Replacing 40 classics with 33 -800's is a gain in terms of seats for sale.
- Lets say for example that the 40 classics were all 137 seat airplanes. That would be 5,480 seats total. Now, with 33 737-800's with 175 seats each, that's 5,775 seats total. That's not even including that fact that some of SWA's classics only have 122 seats, which would make the number of seat difference even greater. Also, that's not including the fact that SWA might use some of the 800's on some transcon routes or over water routes (ETOPS) which will cost more to the paying passenger. All in all, it looks like a gain and expansion to me.
Yes, 727C47 was right......the sun is actually shining.
More seats with less airplanes at the same pay? Well, that's a loss too. It might be an expansion in seats, but it is a loss in equipment and a loss in pilot staffing.
02-28-2012 | 05:14 PM
#22
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
From: B717 FO
There is not a lot of sunshine on the AT side. Folks just are not enthusiastic about the near-term outlook. The recent WSJ article is a piece that makes a lot of us AT folks cringe. We are furlough fodder and it is not all sunshine and roses over here.
C9
02-28-2012 | 05:19 PM
#23
Banned
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
THAT'S WHY YOU SHOULD HAVE HELD OUT FOR ARBITRATION!!!
Duh.
02-28-2012 | 05:48 PM
#24
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
From: B717 FO
REALLY!? The aircraft type has nothing to do with it. Even if AT had all 737s, all the furloughs come from the AT side of the partition. That was signed before SLI negotiations began and is exactly what I would've wanted if the roles were reversed.
Arbitration was never going to happen and is water under the bridge anyway.
One last thing...Hey FishFreighter, is that you down there...b'low me.
C9
Arbitration was never going to happen and is water under the bridge anyway.
One last thing...Hey FishFreighter, is that you down there...b'low me.
C9
02-29-2012 | 11:22 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: 737 F.O.
That is absolutely incorrect. The original SLI proposal that was put forth (and turned down) included a one for one furlough agreement, 1 SWA pilot for 1 AT pilot regardless of seniority.
02-29-2012 | 01:57 PM
#27
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
From: B717 FO
You are right CRJ, that was in SLI 1. BUT...FF was talking about arbitration. I doubt that furloughs would've been addressed in arby..it might have but I doubt it. The governing document would've been the process agreement between SWAPA and SWA. IIRC, the furloughs go AT first then SWA.
C9
C9
Last edited by USN C9B; 02-29-2012 at 05:45 PM. Reason: WTH did I mean to say in the last sentence!?
02-29-2012 | 05:05 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: 737 F.O.
You are right CRJ, that was in SLI 1. BUT...FF was talking about arbitration. I doubt that furloughs would've been addressed in arby..it might have but I doubt it. The governing document would've been the process agreement between SWAPA and SWA. IIRC, the furloughs go AT first then SWA. I was and still not wrong.
C9
C9
03-01-2012 | 09:42 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,573
Likes: 282
From: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
03-01-2012 | 09:46 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,573
Likes: 282
From: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Ok buddy, point made.
But try to look at it this way.....
1) A new base will need crews and airplanes.
2) SWA just got 140 airplanes from AT.
3) Multiple -800's will be on property in the years to come.
4) Replacing 40 classics with 33 -800's is a gain in terms of seats for sale.
- Lets say for example that the 40 classics were all 137 seat airplanes. That would be 5,480 seats total. Now, with 33 737-800's with 175 seats each, that's 5,775 seats total. That's not even including that fact that some of SWA's classics only have 122 seats, which would make the number of seat difference even greater. Also, that's not including the fact that SWA might use some of the 800's on some transcon routes or over water routes (ETOPS) which will cost more to the paying passenger. All in all, it looks like a gain and expansion to me.
Yes, 727C47 was right......the sun is actually shining.
But try to look at it this way.....
1) A new base will need crews and airplanes.
2) SWA just got 140 airplanes from AT.
3) Multiple -800's will be on property in the years to come.
4) Replacing 40 classics with 33 -800's is a gain in terms of seats for sale.
- Lets say for example that the 40 classics were all 137 seat airplanes. That would be 5,480 seats total. Now, with 33 737-800's with 175 seats each, that's 5,775 seats total. That's not even including that fact that some of SWA's classics only have 122 seats, which would make the number of seat difference even greater. Also, that's not including the fact that SWA might use some of the 800's on some transcon routes or over water routes (ETOPS) which will cost more to the paying passenger. All in all, it looks like a gain and expansion to me.
Yes, 727C47 was right......the sun is actually shining.
Again, I was not being negative about the whole topic, but simply stating fact. I'm glad the -800s are coming, but it doesn't mean additional hiring despite the increased seats in the market.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
