Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Southwest Trims Burbank  
User currently offlinebigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2951 posts, RR: 6
Posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5819 times:

From LA Times.com:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...flights-from-bob-hope-airport.html

Southwest to reduce 82 weekly flights (12%) by September. Clearly part of a systemwide right-sizing but not in response to competition I would guess. There hasn't been too many new flights in/out of Burbank lately.

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5677 times:

WN serves only 5 destinations from BUR and they are PHX, LAS, SMF, OAK, and SJC. And they seem to have a flight just about every hour to these destinations. This seems like about 2 flights per route a day, which probably won't be missed, especially to OAK and SJC, where it almost looks like they have planes flying there side by side.

User currently offlineUALFAson From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 741 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5360 times:

Anyone familiar with WN's prices on these routes?

The reason I ask is because I used to fly UA between the L.A. area and the Bay Area fairly often. Although I lived closer to BUR and would much rather fly out of there, it would cost anywhere from 2 to 3 times as much to fly UA BUR-SFO as it would LAX-SFO. I'd be willing to pay a little more for the convenience, but not $200 a ticket more.

Seems to me like it's a circular pattern: airlines charge a fare premimum out of BUR, but then they don't have enough pax, so they charge even more to compensate, so they get even fewer pax, so they charge more...



"We hope you've enjoyed flying with us as much as we've enjoyed taking you for a ride."
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

Something about this seems very strange. If I understand correctly, WN is apparently reducing flights bigtime on schedules that have already been released -- whether at one airport (BUR) or system-wide -- and I don't think I've seen this before. "Optimizing" of the September schedules is mentioned in the article, as well as the fact that these new schedules haven't been released yet?

In late March, the available schedule window was opened up thru late October. I'm sure we've never seen optimization of already-released schedules, have we?

Perhaps dadoftyler might be able to comment on this.

bb


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26170 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4685 times:

Even with a few trims, Southwest will be big fish at the airport. In 2009, 65.9% of airport boardings were on SWA.

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 2):
would cost anywhere from 2 to 3 times as much to fly UA BUR-SFO as it would LAX-SFO.

Remember United has a monopoly in the BUR market, unlike LAX which has 5 airlines fighting to SFO.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4297 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 3):
In late March, the available schedule window was opened up thru late October. I'm sure we've never seen optimization of already-released schedules, have we?

That was my exact same thought when I read the article. I had noticed back in October of 2009 (and asked about it over on FlyerTalk) that the way their pdf schedules.are displayed had changed.

Something's different about the pdf schedules


Quote:
Did anyone else notice that the pdf schedules beginning March 14, 2009 are all weekly?

Here's a list of the current pdf schedules that were available before the latest schedule extension.

09/14/2009 - 10/30/2009 (47 days)
10/31/2009 - 10/31/2009 (1 day)
11/01/2009 - 11/23/2009 (23 days)
11/24/2009 - 11/30/2009 (7 days)
12/01/2009 - 12/21/2009 (21 days)
12/22/2009 - 12/28/2009 (7 days)
12/29/2009 - 01/04/2010 (7 days)
01/09/2010 - 01/09/2010 (1 day)
01/10/2010 - 02/09/2010 (31 days)
02/10/2010 - 02/10/2010 (1 day)
02/11/2010 - 03/12/2010 (30 days)
03/13/2010 - 03/13/2010 (1 day)

So there's three 7-day schedules around Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Year's and four 1-day schedules, but there are five others which cover anywhere from 3 to 6 weeks at a time.

Here's the additional pdf schedules added with the latest schedule extension.

03/14/2010 - 03/20/2010 (7 days)
03/21/2010 - 03/27/2010 (7 days)
03/28/2010 - 04/03/2010 (7 days)
04/04/2010 - 04/10/2010 (7 days)
04/11/2010 - 04/17/2010 (7 days)
04/18/2010 - 04/24/2010 (7 days)
04/25/2010 - 05/01/2010 (7 days)
05/02/2010 - 05/07/2010 (6 days)

No mix of long & short schedules - just all weekly now except the last one which is 6 days. Have they done this in the past and I just haven't noticed? Or did they do it this way because they might be adding additional flights after March 14, 2009 but before May 7, 2009 and this somehow will make it easier?

This was the answer I got (emphasis added)

Quote:
You're right. For the March Base schedule we published sequential individual 7-day schedule increments. We've not done this in the past as a general rule because, if the seven-day increments are all the same, it's just increasing our distribution workload. However, we're doing so many itinerary variations and additions/suppressions these days we're trying this as an experiment to see if this minimizes the need to "split" some of those 30-day schedules closer in as we start tinkering with the itineraries.

Since then, I think I've seen an addition or two after a schedule has been released, but never a suppression.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8044 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

I think Southwest is cutting back on Burbank (BUR) due to the downturn in the entertainment industry in general.

I believe the vast majority of people in the Los Angeles area use LAX, ONT and SNA when flying Southwest nowadays.


User currently offlinesurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2908 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

I guess this is not too surprising, given that the economies of the three states WN serves from BUR - CA, NV, and AZ - are still in shambles right now. Still, this is very sad to see - I love flying out of BUR, and this pretty much dashes my hopes for WN to start flying nonstop to SFO, DEN, and MDW from there anytime soon. I guess the silver lining here is that B6's LAS flights and US mainline to PHX are probably safe.

Quoting point2point (Reply 1):
WN serves only 5 destinations from BUR and they are PHX, LAS, SMF, OAK, and SJC. And they seem to have a flight just about every hour to these destinations.

Exactly. Remember that the new figure of 630 weekly flights is equivalent to 90 daily flights - spread only between 5 cities. You do the math. Most pax (including the biz travelers) will hardly notice a dent in the schedules.

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 2):
Anyone familiar with WN's prices on these routes?

Last time I flew WN out of BUR (late 2006) it was $39 each way to go to SJC for the weekend. Looks like fares have almost doubled since then, to $61 each way for SJC, SMF, OAK, and LAS. PHX will set you back $79 each way these days. No wonder they aren't getting the numbers they used to, people aren't going to travel as often when one trip now costs them about as much as two used to a few years ago...

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 2):
I used to fly UA between the L.A. area and the Bay Area fairly often. Although I lived closer to BUR and would much rather fly out of there, it would cost anywhere from 2 to 3 times as much to fly UA BUR-SFO as it would LAX-SFO. I'd be willing to pay a little more for the convenience, but not $200 a ticket more.

This is still very much the case. UA charges a hefty premium for flying right into SFO (on those awful little barbie jets, no less) whereas you can catch a WN flight into OAK or SJC all day long for half as much. Seems like most of the O&D pax take WN - every time I have flown BUR-SFO, everyone I talk to has also been connecting.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineswabrian From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 299 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Hey everyone,
just wanted to clarify things a bit

β€’ The Schedule data is not new, was released last month as part of our September base schedule – which includes a number of flight optimization efforts across the system.
β€’ For Burbank specifically, the flight adjustments eliminate no markets and take our daily service from 54 departures (now) to 48 departures – a net loss of six flights.
β€’ The scheduling changes in Burbank are in-line with similar seasonal and travel-pattern adjustments across the Southwest system.


User currently onlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6828 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2825 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 7):
UA charges a hefty premium for flying right into SFO (on those awful little barbie jets, no less) whereas you can catch a WN flight into OAK or SJC all day long for half as much. Seems like most of the O&D pax take WN - every time I have flown BUR-SFO, everyone I talk to has also been connecting.

Pretty much true. WN carries 20 times more O&D passengers from BUR to OAK+SJC than UA carries from BUR to SFO. Then again, cutting the equivalent of about 12 daily round-trips from BUR might free up the capacity for them to start running BUR-SFO some day...

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 7):
I love flying out of BUR, and this pretty much dashes my hopes for WN to start flying nonstop to SFO, DEN, and MDW from there anytime soon.

Or perhaps BUR-DEN or BUR-MDW.


User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2615 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 7):
Looks like fares have almost doubled since then, to $61 each way for SJC, SMF, OAK, and LAS. PHX will set you back $79 each way these days. No wonder they aren't getting the numbers they used to, people aren't going to travel as often when one trip now costs them about as much as two used to a few years ago...

Good. Those prices were unsustainable. The public should not be used to rock bottom profit losing prices


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 9):
Or perhaps BUR-DEN or BUR-MDW.

I would imagine these would be for a lot of O&D, since the flights to LAS and PHX can offer numerous connections to just anywhere on the WN map.


User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4435 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting ScottB (Reply 9):
Or perhaps BUR-DEN or BUR-MDW.

BUR is definitely a hole in the WN network out west; it's all that's left west of ELP.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 10):
Good. Those prices were unsustainable. The public should not be used to rock bottom profit losing prices

  


User currently offlineMrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

Personally, I'm a heavy business traveler that flies WN whenever possible. And living in the Ventura County area, BUR is our little not-so-secret secret for flights in and out of Los Angeles. Shame that WN is cutting back service a bit, but I'm not too concerned.. WN essentially "runs" BUR for all intensive purposes, with the balance made up by a couple daily flights on AAL, USA, ASA, & JB.

The best things about Burbank are also the worst things about Burbank--it's small, easily accessible and efficient. But it lacks growth room, which means that the real options (apart from the 5 destinations out of BUR) are over at LAX.

IMO, what the ZLA really needs is efficient high-speed service between it's 4 largest players: LAX, BUR, ONT & LGB. Yes, I realize that I left out John Wayne because to me that's not a game-changing airport for the LA basin. WN serves three out of those 4, and I will continue to brave LAX so long as WN keeps the options strong.



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
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...
Southwest ORF Operation? posted Mon Apr 19 2010 15:10:49 by 747400sp
Can Southwest Afford Not To Grow? posted Sun Apr 11 2010 22:22:39 by PHXtoDCAtoMSP
Why Aren't More Airlines Like Southwest? posted Sat Apr 10 2010 17:12:00 by will777
Southwest N945WN Special Livery? posted Fri Apr 2 2010 21:56:57 by RobK
Westjet Dumping Southwest, Looking At Delta? posted Sun Mar 28 2010 05:50:04 by briboy
Southwest 737 At Klex (Lexington, KY) - Why? posted Thu Mar 25 2010 08:35:54 by Gulfstream650
New Southwest TV Commercial posted Thu Mar 18 2010 17:50:15 by jbmitt
How About Southwest And Spirit Merger posted Sat Mar 13 2010 15:20:39 by wwtraveler99
Southwest: Cargo Airline Of The Year posted Wed Mar 10 2010 14:32:57 by LAXintl
Alliance Formed Between Air Southwest & Eastern posted Thu Feb 25 2010 06:31:49 by PlymSpotter