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.
point2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1961 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5287 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.
UALFAson From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 582 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4970 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."
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4720 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4394 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.
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3641 posts, RR: 38 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3907 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.
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.
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.
surfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2588 posts, RR: 31 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3514 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!
swabrian From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 299 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2518 times:
Hey everyone,
just wanted to clarify things a bit
• 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.
• 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.
• The scheduling changes in Burbank are in-line with similar seasonal and travel-pattern adjustments across the Southwest system.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6360 posts, RR: 34 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2435 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.
413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2225 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
point2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1961 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2141 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.
MrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1396 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
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2755 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
