ScottB wrote:wwtraveler99 wrote:shadez wrote:FLL-VRA also finally goes down to 1 daily. Took long enough.
This has always been only 1 daily
Nope, FLL-VRA is twice daily currently (WN3914/WN3916). FLL-SNU is only once-daily.wnflyguy wrote:talk among friends is that FLL will be getting 2 more international destinations announced in the next few weeks for Jan-Mar schedule. Other sources say FLL has some idle aircraft time with one giving it enough time for SXM round trip and the other enough time for the already awarded FLL-MEX-FLL
Speaking of FLL, when do the A gates open? I was under the impression that was scheduled to happen a couple of weeks ago.SteveXC500 wrote:I haven't flown WN in a year now. DL/SY are the same price, or SLIGHTLY higher, for non-stops. I wonder when WN might get its act together at MSP. WN during Jan/Feb will be down to 22 departures mid-week, compared to 25 last year, same time.
If you and others are choosing DL & SY over WN, that might be part of why they've stagnated (IIRC most of that decline is from MSP-MKE being dropped, though). But do you really want them to push hard against SY? They're not exactly in great shape.bob75013 wrote:4) the realization that to keep seat counts on DAL/DEN and DAL/MDW roughly constant and add new flights, the only way to do that is put Max10's on DAL/DEN and DAL/MDW and cut a frequency to each. The scenario probably applies to other city pairs, but I'm most familiar with those two.
In dense business markets like DEN-DAL/DFW and CHI-DAL/DFW, frequency is important for attracting business customers, especially when competing with legacy carriers at their hubs (or even between their hubs in the case of ORD-DFW for AA). The 737-MAX10 also wouldn't free up gate time the way you think it might given that turn times would likely need to be close to an hour.southwest1675 wrote:BNA-BHM was WN's way of getting you to Dallas back in the Wright Amendment Days. That's why that flight worked for 25 plus years.
Nah, BHM-DAL wasn't possible until the Shelby Amendment was passed in 1997 (permitting non-stops and ticketing between Alabama and DAL), and non-stop BHM-DAL wasn't added until 2007, after the Wright restrictions were loosened to allow ticketing between DAL & cities outside the perimeter. It might have worked as BNA-BHM-MSY-DAL (but you would have had to do the Wright two-step at BHM or MSY) although I suspect it was easier to just do BNA-MSY-DAL or BNA-HOU-DAL.GSP psgr wrote:One of WN's problems is that it can't decide whether it wants it's Southern hub to be ATL or BNA. They've whacked ATL by about a third since buying AIrTran, and have been adding to BNA at the same time, but neither is on the scale of a BWI, MDW, or DEN. Coverage, particularly westbound and to second tier destinations, can be patchy from both.
Neither ATL nor BNA is suitable to grow to the size of BWI, MDW, DEN, PHX, DAL, HOU, LAS, etc. ATL is a big enough market but they're unlikely to be able to grow it to that scale up against the largest single-carrier hub in the world -- and DL is well-managed with good control over its costs. BNA is a great market for WN and they are dominant there, but the market size just isn't large enough to grow the hub by 50-100%, either.
Last I heard the delayed opening was due to a malfunction with the fire sprinkler system. So who knows when that will open up no hard date has been announced.