# Southwest to Acquire Airtran



## Dori (Sep 27, 2010)

I just received an e-mail from SW stating that they are acquiring Airtran. I had heard rumours over at Flyertalk, but now it is official.

Dori


----------



## kjsgrammy (Sep 27, 2010)

I also rec'd the email.  Hoping this will work out to be a "good thing" - added routes, still retain the "no baggage fees".  Will wait and see.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 27, 2010)

All of the airline merger activity spells one thing - higher prices.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 27, 2010)

*You Are Now Free To Move About The Country.*




Dori said:


> I just received an e-mail from SW stating that they are acquiring Airtran.


I suppose that means they'll be selling off all the AirTran Boeing 717s, then buying more Boeing 737s as replacements. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Dori (Sep 27, 2010)

I hope they don't change things too much. SW is our favourite airline. We drive from Toronto to Buffalo at least twice a year to utilize them. DH just earned a Rapid Reward with them, and I am just .5 short of one for me.


Dori


----------



## gnipgnop (Sep 27, 2010)

Our last trip about 3 weeks ago we used AirTran for the first time and I swore I would never use them again*.....GOOD RIDDANCE*


----------



## travelguy (Sep 27, 2010)

This should be good news for those of us who have AirTran service but not SouthWest.  We'll see ...


----------



## irish (Sep 27, 2010)

love southwest!  hope this merger doesn't effect the way southwest does business . i fly them about 18 times a year.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 27, 2010)

Neither of these airlines are real LCC's in the sense of the European LCC's like EasyJet, RyanAir, Germanwings, Wizz, BMIBaby, etc.  But their merger may encourage RyanAir to set up an airline to compete in the US domestic market, as its CEO Michael O'Leary has been contemplating for a while.  That would bring in some REAL low cost competition.


----------



## dougp26364 (Sep 27, 2010)

travelguy said:


> This should be good news for those of us who have AirTran service but not SouthWest.  We'll see ...



Or bad news. In our case, VERY bad news. 

SWA's has stated they have no real interest in our market right now. Airtran's enterance into our market brought airfares down to a reasonable price where I don't need to drive 3 hours to a major metropolitan airport to fly. If SWA's eleminated that service because it doesn't fit their model, I see higher prices for our hometown airport and longer drives to get reasonable pricing.

Since Airtran opperates under a hub and spoke system, I wonder why SWA's had an interest in them other than to knock out compitition? Does Airtran fly into enough markets not already covered by SWA's for the feds to let this proceed?


----------



## ace2000 (Sep 27, 2010)

travelguy said:


> This should be good news for those of us who have AirTran service but not SouthWest. We'll see ...


 
Yes, I'll be watching this too.  Does anyone know if Southwest will be taking over all of the Air-Tran routes?


----------



## dougp26364 (Sep 27, 2010)

gnipgnop said:


> Our last trip about 3 weeks ago we used AirTran for the first time and I swore I would never use them again*.....GOOD RIDDANCE*



I've had that same experience on every carrier out there that we've flown over the years. They're all bad at one point or another. 

Knocking off a LCC and removing that compitition isn't going to be a good thing for consumers. Just ask anyone of the smaller markets Airtran flew into that SWA's had turned their nose up to over the years. Without Airtran, smaller markets are likely to suffer from considerably higher prices.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 27, 2010)

dougp26364 said:


> Since Airtran opperates under a hub and spoke system, I wonder why SWA's had an interest in them other than to knock out compitition? Does Airtran fly into enough markets not already covered by SWA's for the feds to let this proceed?



It could be that SWA is after the fleet, not the routes. That was a big reason why SWA acquired MarkAir about fifteen years ago. Is the AirTrans fleet comprised of 737's?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 27, 2010)

*Boeing 737.*




T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Is the AirTrans fleet comprised of 737's?


According to WikiPedia Dot Org, AirTran is the world's largest operator of Boeing 717-200 aircraft.

Meanwhile, Southwest operates 737s exclusively. 

Something's got to give, no ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## dougp26364 (Sep 27, 2010)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> It could be that SWA is after the fleet, not the routes. That was a big reason why SWA acquired MarkAir about fifteen years ago. Is the AirTrans fleet comprised of 737's?



No, they're 717's. They were touted as more fuel efficient and modern but, they never really found a home. I'm not certain Boeing is producing them anymore. The 717 is essentially the modern version of the MD80 with a seating configuration of 2 seats, isle, 3 seats. They also have a business class section.

To be honest, I don't see the attraction for SWA's except for removing compitition or, maybe they want into those smaller destinations that they've refused to go into because they didn't fit their profit model. But if they wanted into those markets, why not just work with the municipalities who give away all those incentives and enter the market?

They're buying an airline that doesn't fly 737's, works via a hub system out of Atlanta and flies into some markets SWA's has refused. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 27, 2010)

dougp26364 said:


> No, they're 717's. They were touted as more fuel efficient and modern but, they never really found a home. I'm not certain Boeing is producing them anymore. The 717 is essentially the modern version of the MD80 with a seating configuration of 2 seats, isle, 3 seats. They also have a business class section.
> 
> To be honest, I don't see the attraction for SWA's except for removing compitition or, maybe they want into those smaller destinations that they've refused to go into because they didn't fit their profit model. But if they wanted into those markets, why not just work with the municipalities who give away all those incentives and enter the market?
> 
> They're buying an airline that doesn't fly 737's, works via a hub system out of Atlanta and flies into some markets SWA's has refused. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


The 717 was a McDonnell-Douglas product that was almost ready to go into production when Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas combined.  Since it was so close to production-ready, and filled a small niche below the 737, Boeing continued the plane into operation.  

There were many people how had misgivings about that at the time; the market for the plane seemed shaky, it was a different design so it had little in common with other Boeing aircraft on the flight deck oi in maintenance, it was built in Los Angeles, away from Boeing's main commercial aircraft production centers.  In the end, the decision to continue it seems to have been largely made by top Boeing execs who came over from McDonnell-Douglas and who had personal attachments to the plane. 

Putting effort into getting the 717 out took resources away from focusing on 777 and 787 production, for which Boeing has been paying a price ever since.

******

So yeah - I don't see where there's an equipment fit, unless SWA is intending to really focus on markets that are a step smaller than where they've been so far and they intend to keep AirTran's support infrastructure for the 717 largely intact.

****

From your standpoint, Doug, this could be a situation in which SWA has not served Wichita because they didn't believe they had had the right equipment to do so.  Acquiring AirTran might then allow them to be in that market.

That's probably a stretch and is totally speculative, but right now that's about the only spin that seems to work.


----------



## Pat H (Sep 27, 2010)

Wonder if they will keep the AT service in Allentown, PA. I moved to SC last week and now SW and AA show up at ABE!


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Sep 27, 2010)

According to NYTimes this morning, it is the routes and access to Atlanta airport that SW wants and hopefully, that will mean SW service and planes. We flew ATA, guess that was AirTran once to and from Hawaii when they partnered with ATA, yuck! the aisles of the planes had been made smaller and the seats were so close that the hair on the arm of the man next to me was making the hair on my arm stand up. Really icky. I had to put on a sweater!
Liz


----------



## Bucky (Sep 27, 2010)

Eliminating competition and acquiring routes to Boston, Atlanta, D.C., Bahamas, San Juan, etc are all positives for SWA.  Will make my Rapid Rewards all that much better.


----------



## John Cummings (Sep 27, 2010)

It is definitely the routes that SWA wants. SWA and Air Tran really don't compete much with each other because most of their routes don't overlap. Here is a link for Yahoo Finance about the deal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100927/ap_on_bi_ge/us_southwest_airtran_buyout

I used to be a big fan of SWA but not so much anymore.


----------



## x3 skier (Sep 28, 2010)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The 717 was a McDonnell-Douglas product that was almost ready to go into production when Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas combined.  Since it was so close to production-ready, and filled a small niche below the 737, Boeing continued the plane into operation.
> 
> There were many people how had misgivings about that at the time; the market for the plane seemed shaky, it was a different design so it had little in common with other Boeing aircraft on the flight deck oi in maintenance, it was built in Los Angeles, away from Boeing's main commercial aircraft production centers.  In the end, the decision to continue it seems to have been largely made by top Boeing execs who came over from McDonnell-Douglas and who had personal attachments to the plane.
> 
> Putting effort into getting the 717 out took resources away from focusing on 777 and 787 production, for which Boeing has been paying a price ever since.



Just a little more info on the 717. When I was the USAF Chief Engineer for the C-17, the then MD-95 was being developed at the same complex in Long Beach as the C-17. As development was being completed on the C-17, a lot of the C-17 engineers and other personnel were shifted to the MD-95 which IIRC was the McDonnell Douglas designation and which never really found a home. Since the Boeing takeover was in place before the MD-95 hit the runway, they renamed it the 717. It is a pretty nice airframe but Boeing never really paid much attention to it that I could see so it sort of wilted away. I guess if all the company mergers hadn't taken place, it would have been the DC-9.5  

Cheers


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 28, 2010)

x3 skier said:


> It is a pretty nice airframe but Boeing never really paid much attention to it that I could see so it sort of wilted away. I guess if all the company mergers hadn't taken place, it would have been the DC-9.5
> 
> Cheers



As I understood it, from friends within Boeing, the issue in Boeing really didn't have to do with the quality of the airframe.  The nail in the coffin for the 717 was that the only thing it had in common with the rest of the Boeing fleet was that the model number began and ended in "7".

One of the big selling points for AirBus over Boeing has been the continuity of controls, equipment, layouts, and parts up and down the product line.  That has translated into less time required for crew to learn to fly the various models of airplanes, greater ability of maintenance crew to service a wide variety of aircraft, and a reduced number of spare parts needed to keep in inventory.

Because Boeing's planes extend over a longer hsitory, there isn't the same degree of continuity in their product.  Then, the 717 made that situation even worse.

Thus, in the end, the only market for the 717 was with a company that essentially flow only 717s. 

******

It wasn't a question of Boeing execs ignoring the 717.  The execs who made that decision were actually former McDonnell-Douglas execs.  But even they could see the 717 had no future.  

The decision simply reflected that at the time of the merger, there really wasn't much additional investment needed to complete the plane and get an airworthiness certificate.  By rolling the plane out they were able to get a return on that added increment of investment.

Nevertheless it was clear from the day  the decision was made to continue the 717 program that no matter what the plane's technical merits, it woud be a limited production airplane.


----------



## silverfox82 (Sep 28, 2010)

Actually the 717 was a md80 and prior to that a dc9, been around a long time and not a pilot favorite, its been described as "squirrily" by some who have flown them. One of the reasons SW is sucessful is one type of equipment so this does seem odd, or there will be a lot of used 717's on the market.


----------



## x3 skier (Sep 28, 2010)

An article in the WSJ says SW plans to keep the 717 for some of the low traffic routes rather than use the "standard" 737. The WSJ also says they are strongly considering the 737-800, the largest of the family for their next buy.

Douglas was well known for the ruggedness of their structure so I expect for the 717 to be around for a long time, sort of like the CFM-56 re-engined DC-8's that soldier on in freight applications while the 707's, the competitor, have long since been retired (except for the KC-135's in the USAF which have essentially been rebuilt a few times  ).

Cheers


----------



## talkamotta (Oct 7, 2010)

dougp26364 said:


> Or bad news. In our case, VERY bad news.
> 
> SWA's has stated they have no real interest in our market right now. Airtran's enterance into our market brought airfares down to a reasonable price where I don't need to drive 3 hours to a major metropolitan airport to fly. If SWA's eleminated that service because it doesn't fit their model, I see higher prices for our hometown airport and longer drives to get reasonable pricing.
> 
> Since Airtran opperates under a hub and spoke system, I wonder why SWA's had an interest in them other than to knock out compitition? Does Airtran fly into enough markets not already covered by SWA's for the feds to let this proceed?



Does Airtran fly into Atlanta???   Delta has tried extremely hard over the years to keep SWA out of Atlanta.


----------



## sfwilshire (Oct 7, 2010)

I believe the answer is yes. 

Sheila


----------



## x3 skier (Oct 7, 2010)

talkamotta said:


> Does Airtran fly into Atlanta???   Delta has tried extremely hard over the years to keep SWA out of Atlanta.



AFAIK, they have about a 20% share of passengers at ATL.

Cheers


----------



## bogey21 (Oct 7, 2010)

dougp26364 said:


> They're buying an airline that doesn't fly 737's, works via a hub system out of Atlanta and flies into some markets SWA's has refused. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



*I've been flying SWA since almost day 1 (3 cities in Texas).  They seem to have made some good decisions over the years to be where they are today.

George*


----------



## keninny (Oct 7, 2010)

AirTran uses Atlanta as its hub of operation.  

As I see it, this may not be such a great deal for me, Living in Buffalo, NY we currently have three LCC (Southwest, AirTran, and Jet Blue).  If and when this transaction is finalized we will be reduced to two LCC.  

I really blame our own NFTA (the quasi gov agency controlling the airport) for keeping fees high and using regulations tight; reducing the competition in this market will bring back early 1980's pricing to this market.

I would bet (and this is just my guess) that instead of people driving down from Toronto and lower Ontario to Buffalo for lower airfare, people from Buffalo will be driving up to Toronto to fly out of Pearson or driving to fly out of Cleveland, OH.

Just my prediction.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 7, 2010)

talkamotta said:


> Does Airtran fly into Atlanta???   Delta has tried extremely hard over the years to keep SWA out of Atlanta.



SWA's hub is in Atlanta. 

What I'm concerned with, as is our city leaders, is that SWA's is going to cherry pick the routes they want and leave the smaller markets they've refused in the past without service. Airtran had been recieving subsidy payments to come to an stay in Wichita. It was part of a program to make air travel more affordable to the city. Without Airtran there is a real fear that prices will once again sky rocket and we'll be driving 3 hours north to fly out of Kansas City.


----------



## Luanne (Oct 7, 2010)

dougp26364 said:


> SWA's hub is in Atlanta.



Since when?  I flew to Atlanta in June.  There were no SW flights in or out of there.  Their website still doesn't show Atlanta.


----------



## John Cummings (Oct 8, 2010)

SWA does not have a conventional hub like most airlines. It is a point to point airline. See following link:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Southwest...--Hub-and-Spoke-Or-Point-to-Point?&id=1634680


----------

