Swa May Add Rjs To Fleet

[Busdrvr]

I think it's important to note that jetBlue's very low CASM of just over 6 cents is driven in part by three factors: relatively low wage rates due to its workforce all being in the first three years of their respective pay scales, a high average stage length (about 1250 miles), and very low maintenance expense with the A320's all still under warranty. I'd add that their depreciation numbers are unrealistic if they're still using the formula they stated in their S-1 filing; an A320 is unlikely to retain 20% of its value after 25 years of heavy use.

Introducing 100-seat super-RJ's into the fleet will help reduce pilot costs (lower wage rates) and flight attendant costs (2 required for 100 seats, vs. 4 for 156 seats), but it will increase costs overall due to higher acquisition/depreciation costs per seat, as well as shortening jetBlue's average stage length. Training and maintenance costs will also increase with operation of two fleets.

And jetBlue would be lucky to get 25% load factors on JFK-RIC service at fares of $180 each way, especially if DL/US/CO were to match the fares at LGA and EWR, and if WN were offering ISP-RIC service for $50 each way. jetBlue's costs are going down, but their yields are down as well -- the yields need to come up before the costs do as well, especially before jetBlue starts to expand into less dense markets which won't fill 156-seat A320's as easily as NYC-Florida and NYC-West Coast.

You wise man SFB . When JBlu's costs are rationalized with a 20 year Dep and 10% resid, and long term mx costs in line with SWA (and how many TVs does SWA have to keep working..), BELF looks more in the Mid 80's range. If anybody is unclear of the residual value of a 25 year old example of a 40 year old design, trot on over to the U board and look at the pretty pictures of the salvaged 14 yo 737-400.
While RJ pilots make less, the per pax cost is comparable, if not higher for even the lowest cost operators.

But back on topic.... IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT. buying and flying RJ's would be DISASTEROUS to SWA (IMHO, of course) B)

 

[Tanker]

Busdrvr
Here is the upgrade schedule that I went through for SWA. First there is a 2 week ground school. After that there are 4 training sessions in the simulator. each session is 1 1/2 hour ground & 4 hours in the sim (split between you & your sim partner. After the 4 sim sessions (if the instructor feels that you are ready) you have your checkride which is another 1 1/2 hour oral & a 4 hour sim (again the time is split with your sim partner). After the checkride there are 2 LOFT sim flights, each LOFT is a 1 1/2 hour oral & a 4 hour sim. On the LOFT you are the Capt for 1 4 hour session & your sim partner is it for the other LOFT. You only do 1 sim session a day so all told you spend 7 days in the sim. With scheduled days off it takes about a month to finish upgrade. After upgrade you do an IOE with a Check Airman. This consists of 25 hours or revenue flying (1 leg has an FAA inspector in the jumpseat) which normally takes 3 days. After the IOE the training is not finished as the new Capt is not HUD qualified. He gets qualified by going back to the training center 6 months after his upgrade checkride & gets 1 day of ground school & 2 days in the sim for HUD training. After the training we do 4 revenue flights with a Check Airman where we do practice approaches (if the weather is VFR) using the HUD. Hopefully this answers your questions. BTW the training program at SWA is very similar to what the other airlines do as it is what the FAA requires.

 

[Busdrvr]

At UAL the 737 Qual course takes 25 work days. 7 days of ground school only (you are supposed to finish a home study course prior to training) Then 7 days of FBS (no vis, no motion sims) and additional ground school. then 10 full motion sims. Thats for a Capt and F/O. CAPT and Capt pairings take 12 sims and f/o and f/o pairings take 13. IOE is very similar. But the TRUTH is it SHOULD take longer at traditional airlines with multiple fleets. It is simply a bigger transition to go from 777 F/O to guppy capt, than right ot left seat in the same jet. Then add in the notion that the average pilot will fly AT LEAST 5 or 6 equipment types in a career. EXPENSIVE!
Just wondering, what could you possibly teach an F/O about the guppy that he needs to know and doesn't already for two weeks?

 

[AirwAr]

I don't know what size of RJs they are looking for, but if they put 56 seats or less on them, wouldn't that let them get around the Wright Amendment? That could open up a lot of new destinations from Love!!

 

[Tanker]

Just wondering, what could you possibly teach an F/O about the guppy that he needs to know and doesn't already for two weeks?

The 2 weeks of ground is not just about the equipment. A lot of it is about the Operation Manual. There are things that a Capt needs to know that an F/O usually doesn't deal with. Plus in that ground school there is a 2 day CRM class.

 

[Ch. 12]

What do you mean, no one else is going against Delta? Continental and Northwest sell tickets in that market. [/quote]
I had meant N/S in JAX which I thought is what you were referring to.

Regarding all of the small cities you have listed as potential WN cities...WN will maintain it's core philosophies of 1) Not going head to head (especiall with AA) needlessly in situations where it can be avoided and 2) Not going into markets too small to support high frequency (most of the JAX and JAN markets and all of the small TX markets). IF (and this is a huge "if") WN does aquire smaller equipment, it will be to provide service to mid to large populations rather than the small cities traditionally served by commuters. The small planes would go to markets where they can be flown with decent loads 5-7 times per day and the 737 could not. They may not even enter new markets but rather re-align the smaller O&Ds and place more 737s on the larger trans-con markets.