pinniped

People fly narrowbodies to Europe and deep into South America all the time. That's not a showstopper for 99% of leisure travelers. Besides, the typical WN seat is more comfortable than the typical legacy-carrier Economy Minus seat on *any* type. And almost nobody buys coach tickets based on the quality of either the airfood or the digital content offered by the airline. (In the IFE area, Southwest is actually better in some ways than some legacies.)

It's conceivable, although Brazil seems like a weird place for the next expansion. When I think Brazil, I think GIG/GRU. But if their data shows demand to those northern cities, so be it...

sdsearch

I'm not familiar with the narrowbodies deep into South America, but the narrowbodies to Europe are "heftier" narrowbodies like the 757, which can do ranges far beyond what Southwest's current 737s can do. Newer 737s they may get at some point, maybe, but I am not aware of 737s being flow US<->Europe, are you?

Southwest could do any expansion to anywhere in the world they wanted if they just gave up on their "only one plane type" philosophy. But as long as they insist on that philosophy, tied to a plane designed for not that much beyond transcon US, they're going to be limited by it.

Now, there are different way of overcoming limitations. One is "hopskotching"; UA (inherited from CO) can get you across the Pacific that way -- first hop Hawaii, then on to Guam (which was a CO hub), and then on to beyond that. Is Southwest in talks with some Central or near South American country for putting a sort of "hub" there, where they have the allowance to stop, refuel, change crews, change planes, etc? Would we know about if they were? They could be looking at the Guam model of a "hub", or just the Shannon (Ireland) model (of decades past) of a refueling station.

pinniped

For Europe, I'm mainly aware of 757's. I believe the WOW/Norwegian types are using A320's from the East Coast to Iceland and elsewhere. But from a passenger perspective, it doesn't matter. 99% of pax see $99 fares to Iceland and buy the tickets without knowing the aircraft type.

My only point is that the aircraft type isn't really a marketing point for hardly anyone. If it fits operationally, a 737 will put butts in seats just as easily as a 767 would.

As far as South America is concerned, I've flown these trips for business as far down as Buenos Aires. Whenever I price in J, my cheapest option is often an all-narrowbody itin connecting somewhere like Panama or Lima. (Granted, I don't book these...I have so far had decent luck getting reasonable fares on United to Lima - 767 - and then Avianca beyond.) Haven't flown these for leisure so don't know if the same effect is present on Y fares. Whether I'm starting my search from a Star Alliance or Oneworld perspective, you get a lot of itins comprising of the South American partners and they use a lot of A320s and similar types.

I personally don't think Southwest is out to build a Central American hub. I suspect there's either nothing to this rumor, or it's a really minimal schedule to 1-2 northern Brazil cities.

Even if WN decided to ditch the 40+ year tradition of using one type/family, it doesn't seem like they'd send their first widebody to Brazil of all places...

sdsearch

You misunderstand. The 757 has greater range than the 737 (at least the varieties of the 737 AA has had to date). So the issue with Southwest refusing to consider other narrowbodies (that do longer range) is the issue. They could get to South America with narrowbodies, but not with the 737 narrowbodies they currently have.

But they're just as opposed to getting A321s (which are also narrowbodies) as they are to getting 777s. They so far want to be 737 only (no other plane model number), no matter how that limits them.

It's not a marketing thing. Southwest think it simplifies their whole system, including pilot and crew training, to only use model model series of plane. It's because of that internal simplification, not because of any marketing, that Southwest has stuck to only 737s.

So it's not a question of narrowbodies vs widebodies. It's a question of 737 vs more capable narrowbodies.

Air Houston

How about a wet lease? Another airline with wide bodies could operate the flights with their frames instead of Southwest expanding their fleet to another type.

Poker2012chu

Hmm, if WN actually does that, then why would they stop at at Brazil? They could go to London, Auckland, Moscow, Dubai, you name it.

In all seriousness, I feel like WN would need a big change of direction to do this, to greatly expand international destinations like Brazil. It would make it a completely different airline than the one we know today. Central America and the Caribbean is one thing, but that's because they only fly 737's. WN hasn't even expanded into Canada (YYZ, YVR, YYC, YUL, etc.). If they expand even further out, that would mean dropping the whole "we fly only 737" thing to make room for A321's and 787's, even though they are technically leased. It could also mean assigned seating. Can you imagine getting an F58 boarding position on a 9 abreast (3-3-3) config on a 788...

I'm just saying that doing this could potentially mean a larger focus to an international focus, a far cry from the short-hop domestic routes WN has a reputation for.

Needless to say, this is all just speculation.

Terminator8

Assigned seating is very likely coming regardless of new routes/planes. The new reservation system will allow SW to upcharge for assigned seating ahead of time. No reason for them not to join the party.

pinniped

No I don't. I was responding to the fundamental premise that passengers won't buy tickets because it's a narrowbody. I think that's BS, as 99% of the people buying the tickets don't even recognize the term "narrowbody". Most of the non-avgeek, non-FT universe can't even tell you what kind of plane they flew on 15 minutes after they arrived at their destination. When my wife gets home from a business trip and I ask her what she flew, she shrugs and says it had two wings and a couple engines. She gets annoyed when I ask her where the engines were located and what the winglets looked like.

IFE? Airfood? I have no idea what IFE an airline has until I actually board and take a look. (Since I like live TV more than a limited movie selection, I might actually *prefer* Southwest's IFE. Not that I particularly care either way...) Food? It sucks on all carriers in coach. Not a differentiator in any market that Southwest flies or is contemplating flying.

I fully believe that Southwest will stick to their 737 model. I do not believe they are adding or wet-leasing other types just to get to Brazil. The single-type model has worked for them, it's fundamental to what they do, so short of a massive strategy to go global I don't see it changing.

sdsearch

Well, that was never my claim, though after scrolling up I see that claim from someone else did start this discussion. I agree that most people wouldn't care about the width of the plane (as long as it's a jet, at least ).

The only thing I might have claimed was that passengers might not like 10 hour flights on a plane with no food. But legacy airlines manage to serve food on narrowbody planes, too, so the width of the plane has little to do with it. It's just another Southwest policy (that peanuts are supposed to be good enough, no matter what the length of the flight). The legacy airlines are start to give away more free snacks in coach than Southwest does, and yet on top of that they also have food for sale in coach (let alone food for free up front). And on "international enough" flights (I'm not clear on where the dividing line is), food is free in coach too on legacies.

It's one thing for consumers if one airline charges for food and another gives it free. It's a completely thing for consumers if one airline has food on a very long flights and another airline has none at all. A meal bought at the airport restaurant before departure is not necessarily good enough for an 8-10 hour flight.

pinniped

Agree on the food: Southwest would have to change something if they intend to operate anything near the max range of a 737MAX. If Southwest went 8 hours with peanuts, that'd attract a lot of negative publicity - it'd be a big story in the mainstream media.

Norwegian and WOW are the only operations I can think of right now where you might be on an 8-hour flight where there is literally no complimentary food/bev whatsoever. (I'm not sure what, if anything, one can buy on board.) But all of the mainstream pub about those two is about the long-haul ULCC concept in general. $99 to Iceland with no bags and no food? It nets out as positive publicity to their target audience.

Since Southwest definitely doesn't want to play in the ultra-low-fare space, they'd need to upgrade the food enough that they don't wind up on the front page of USA Today. It'd have to be 1 box that somewhat resembled a meal (sandwich) plus 1 that was more snackish. Could be two cold boxes. Seems like they could fit that into the operation if they do indeed start flying longer routes...somewhere...

Terminator8

Do people actually eat food served in coach? If I'm on a longhaul in Y, I ALWAYS bring my own food, usually a gourmet sandwich and some type of side dish and/or white chocolate chip cookie.

I can't imagine ingesting the garbage that is served in Y.

sdsearch

In those situations, many people who care order special meals, to have a little more control over what they get.

Anyway, it depends a lot on the airline and the flight.

danielonn

And WN Would have to include hot meals and alcoholic beverages to compete with other airlines.

danielonn

They could interline with GOL Brazil or TAM.

Terminator8

No they wouldn't. As has already been stated, nobody picks a Y seat based on food.