|
Originally Posted by Marvin
(Post 1102069)
It depends.
If one is a senior 737 CA in ATL, then that individual can choose to bid over to SWA as an FO or stay in ATL as a CA or FO on the 717. IN addition, the more senior 737 CAs can keep their seat in ATL until the last few airplanes go through conversion, so they can potentially keep their seat for a couple years. On the SWA side, they will go wherever their seniority will hold for a base. If they choose 717 CA, they may be able to stay in ATL for a long time. 737 FOs will mostly be 717 FOs, although some will be able to get 737 FO on the SWA side and a few may be able to upgrade to 717 CA on the ATN side. Some folks are bidding the 717 to try to stay in ATL or to try to retain a CA seat on the SWA side after 2015. Clear as mud? :-) Wow, sounds fair. |
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
(Post 1560818)
You're pretty clueless dude. How is a 717 more inefficient than a POS Classic? Think about it. Fuel burn, mx cost.
143 pax vs 117 |
Originally Posted by Flys135s
(Post 1560931)
More passengers carried per lb of fuel burned
143 pax vs 117 The issue is that WN does the 737 and only the 737. That's their game, all they know, and they didn't want to add the complexity of training along with all the support that comes with a second fleet. |
That and ownership of the classics v. lease payments to Boeing.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1560952)
The 717 burns considerably less fuel than the 737.
The issue is that WN does the 737 and only the 737. That's their game, all they know, and they didn't want to add the complexity of training along with all the support that comes with a second fleet. Either way you cut it, if it was for fuel or mx and infrastructure, doesn't matter. If they could have made more money with the 717's they would have kept them. IMHO the increase in fuel was just the nail in the coffin. |
Originally Posted by Cogf16
(Post 1560892)
Wow, sounds fair. |
Originally Posted by Flys135s
(Post 1560963)
I assumed the 717 burned 3.8K- 4K /hr vs 4.8K for a -700. Let me know if that's off.
Either way you cut it, if it was for fuel or mx and infrastructure, doesn't matter. If they could have made more money with the 717's they would have kept them. IMHO the increase in fuel was just the nail in the coffin. The fact is, WN is a 737 entrenched airline and that's that. Adding a fleet type brings a lot of pork with it (mx, whole new training department and associated structure, scheduling and bidding complexity) that WN didn't want to deal with. I'm very happy with the decision... those planes yall are practically giving away to DL will be my first captain seat in a small handful of years! :) |
Originally Posted by Flys135s
(Post 1560668)
Because oil prices went up and made the 717 obsolete. Do you think Southwest should have continued flying the 717's and lost money just so a few pilots wouldn't feel slighted? Kind of losing sight of the big picture, which is that they are in it to make money. If they can make more money with the 737 then get rid of the 717's.
|
Originally Posted by Flys135s
(Post 1560931)
More passengers carried per lb of fuel burned
143 pax vs 117 |
Originally Posted by shoelu
(Post 1560983)
83% of AirTran AND Southwest pilots agree with you.
I promise you that ZERO percent on our side think it was a fair deal. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:52 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands