Southwest/ata Rumors

[N421LV]

I am surprised nobody here knows the engine type on LUV's -700's...

[post="188785"][/post]​

ALL 737's use the same engine (JT8's on the -200; CFM56's on the rest). Yet
another reason to go with Boeing vs. Brand X.

 

[wwtraveler99]

Looks like LUV has CFM56-3 engines for the -300 and CFM56-7 for the -700. Yes the -700 are rated at 24k.

 

[IORFA]

Why can't the ATA 800's make it to LAX from ISP? AA flies the 800's from BOS to SEA and LAX everyday. They at times have also flown them from BOS to SAN and SJC.

 

[jimntx]

I think the point was that the runway at ISP is too short for a "worst case" takeoff in a fully loaded 800.

 

[usfliboi]

you guys pack um in so tight may not be room for fuel

 

[SWAFA30]

"Economy" Seat Pitch Comparison Chart

 

[SCEflyer]

From a F/A standpoint, if we start as a -800 4 person crew, we would need to fly the entire trip as such. If we were to work the first day of the trip on an -800, then the second on a -700, we would spend the entire day with an extra crewmember doing one of two things, either deadheading or trying to work their way into a 3 person service, either of which is inefficient which is the SWA equivalent of the "F" word. Even after the -200s are gone, we have so many of the -300/-700 variant aircraft that even 40 -800s would be a white elephant. A -700 breaks at an outstation and dispatch is looking for a jet to do a swap...an -800 is all that is available. The -700 cabin crew is now a person short. Theoretically, you take the "extra" stew from the inbound -800 and off you go. Except, we have to assume that said -800 was deployed on a route where the seats were needed...now they are not available. Once MX gets the broken -700 fixed, it could in turn operate the swapped -800s segement except you're now about 40 seats short and Customer Service now has a massive oversale on their hands. I don't know, just seems to me it would be constantly trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Also, are the -800s TZ operates theirs to sell? Not trying to flame anyone, just curious.

I work outside the air transport industry, but devote considerable time dealing with financial issues in aerospace. Your message giving your perspective on this manning issue is extremely informative, and written without any particular bias. A great quality. Thanks for explaining this to us outsiders.

Tom

[post="187575"][/post]​

 

[stewbear]

Precisely. However, VM positions are over and above FAA minimums. Putting an additional f/a on certain flights is contractual between the company and the union. For instance, an MD-80 has an FAA minimum crew of 3 f/as. If you are doing a DFW-SAT, DFW-AUS, or DFW-IAH with a full load, an additional f/a (VM) may be added to the cabin crew because you have about 20-25 usable minutes to do the service and get picked up between the time you can safely get up from the jumpseat and the "prepare for landing" at which time the f/as have to sit back down.

But, then the minimum crew may go on somewhere else and the VM sits in the outstation airport until a "full load" flight is going back to DFW or the VM deadheads back to DFW or lays over in the outstation city.

[post="187568"][/post]​

FAA REQUIRES one f/a per 50 seats. If it goes over 1 per 50 you go up one f/a. So if the a/c has 151 seats you go up to 4 f/as