Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WN @ LAX.  
User currently offlinePe@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."
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNtspelich From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 2158 times:

Just randomly I selected a day from the BTS website: 9/1/03.

That day there were 116 flights
34 flights were delayed
13 of these delays were of 10 minutes or less
Only one was an hour or longer.

The average delay for all flights that day was 5.96 minutes

Each delayed flight was on average 20.35 minutes late.

Still, not too bad to have 82 of 116 flights leave on time, that's about 71%.

Hope this helps.
NS



United 717 heavy, you're facing the wrong way. Any chance you can powerback to get off of my deice pad?
User currently offlineGamps 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).

Cheers


User currently offlineSWAbubba 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.


User currently offlineAtcboy73 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

What is the BTS website?

User currently offlineNtspelich From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2010 times:

The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

http://www.bts.gov/

NS

[Edited 2003-12-04 01:32:43]


United 717 heavy, you're facing the wrong way. Any chance you can powerback to get off of my deice pad?
User currently offlineScottB 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.

User currently offlineLgbguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

WN will be using the US gates. WN is also trying to get HP to move out as well.

User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19246 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

I see, thanks.

Does WN receive any incentives for flying into LAX? I wonder whether it would if it served near-by Long Beach instead.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineSsides 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?



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineFATFlyer 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
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1793 times:

Thanks, FATflyer --

Like I said, I am unfamiliar with LGB in general, and was unaware of the noise requirements. What airlines currently operate from LGB?



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New A&E "Airline" Season-WN@LAX posted Mon Jun 23 2003 18:50:06 by SWAbubba
WN LAX-SJC--737NG Or Classic? posted Sun Dec 9 2001 21:26:01 by MDCJets
WN To Start DEN-LAX Please Confirm posted Sun May 4 2008 10:51:04 by Runga08
WN Emergency Landing At LAX Today (2/28) posted Thu Feb 28 2008 07:28:48 by Arcrftlvr
WN Adding SFO-LAX On 04Nov posted Mon Aug 27 2007 19:37:43 by CV880
WN To Cut BWI-LAX/OAK, PHL-LAX/OAK? posted Wed Jun 20 2007 23:47:44 by A330323X
WN 2329 Go Around At LAX...cause Of AirForce One? posted Fri Apr 6 2007 04:37:54 by HeyWhaTheHay
WN 1205 MDW/LAX Diversion posted Sat Jan 27 2007 02:44:41 by Aeroman62
Backfire While Starting WN Jet At LAX Today posted Thu Aug 24 2006 08:24:51 by 747hogg
WN 737 Type MDW-LAX posted Sun Apr 17 2005 04:08:36 by Venuscat2