Pe@rson
Topic Author
Posts: 16001
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:16 am

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."
 
ntspelich
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:35 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:38 am

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?
 
gamps
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:10 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:45 am

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
 
SWAbubba
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 2:15 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:17 am

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.
 
atcboy73
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 10:09 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:15 am

What is the BTS website?
 
ntspelich
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:35 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:25 am

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?
 
ScottB
Posts: 5413
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 1:38 pm

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.
 
lgbguy
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 3:05 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 1:46 pm

WN will be using the US gates. WN is also trying to get HP to move out as well.
 
Pe@rson
Topic Author
Posts: 16001
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:57 pm

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."
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:06 pm

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!!!!
 
FATFlyer
Posts: 4425
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 4:12 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:37 am

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
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: WN @ LAX.

Fri Dec 05, 2003 1:01 am

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!!!!