Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19246 posts, RR: 52 Posted (10 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 2212 times:
LAX is a very large and busy station. One airline which regularly serves this airport is WN, who has a short turnaround of either 25 or 30 minutes. In view of LAX's vastness and busyness, are WN's efficient turnarounds almost always achieved? It certainly makes me wonder whether such stations are conductive to such an efficient operation.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Gamps From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 469 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 2147 times:
From my experience with them (I fly weekly SJC-LAX-SJC or SJC-SAN-SJC), as the day progresses the delay increases, but morning flights are usually on time. Evening flights I have experienced 60 mins to 2 hours delay. But this is quite in line with the other airline I fly on these routes (American Eagle).
SWAbubba From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2063 times:
LAX is a very well designed airport which allows us to usually get in and out very quickly. The fact that we are in terminal 1 also helps since it is a very short taxi to the runway. Occasionally we have to land on 25L which adds 5-10 minutes of taxi time.
Some of the worst delays I have seen come from the 747s at the next terminal getting towed in or out. The often block the taxiway for 10 minutes or more. Another common delay is the lack of gates for -700's, as only about 5 of the gates there can take the larger wingspans.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6808 posts, RR: 32
Reply 6, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
Not that this is directly related to the topic at hand, but who's getting US Airways' gates at Terminal 1 if/when they colocate with UA at Terminals 6/7/8? WN, HP, a split between the two, or someone else? I imagine that WN would practically kill for more gates at LAX.
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
I doubt WN receives any incentive for flying to LAX. I think their presence there is simply a factor of history -- they've been there for quite a while, and they have many loyal customers who probably wouldn't want to drive over to LGB after flying from LAX for several years.
This wasn't the case at SFO, where WN had a relatively small operation. It was clear that the congestion and delays at SFO were simply not worth the trouble, so they moved all flights to OAK and SJC. Apparently, the congestion at LAX is worth putting up with due to the loyalty and yields coming from LAX passengers.
I don't know if WN would ever launch a separate service from LGB. They have the LA area pretty well covered through LAX, SNA, ONT, and BUR. Adding a fifth airport might not do much good, although I admit that I'm unfamiliar with the market for flights from LGB. Anyone have any idea whether this will happen?
FATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5843 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1796 times:
Considering LGB allows only limited operations and all mainline slots are full I don't see WN moving there.
LGB may allow additional flights in the future but it will be only a couple of more flights since the airport operates under a total "noise budget" created before the federal govt took over noise regulation at airports in 1990.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain