LAX is so over saturated with Hawaii flights between 7 carriers 4 of whom also have wide body capacity. I thought for sure WN would have gone along the lines of their LGB strategy and added ONT and BUR for a triangle service before ever adding LAX.
One issue that is there at BUR and SNA have is that both of these airports have shorter runways. BUR is limited to 14 gates, SNA has slot restrictions, and there is a limit to the number of annual passengers at SNA.
WN would also have more connecting feed at LAX than it would at BUR, SNA, or ONT due to the bigger WN presence at LAX and WN having nonstop service out of LAX to some destinations that it doesn't serve nonstop from BUR, SNA, or ONT.
AQ made it work from both SNA and BUR as did CO/UA which just relaunched a few days ago. With SNA having a 1000’ shorter rwy than BUR that is a challenge for the 738 and even the MAX8 and would probably only happen with the MAX7, but in another thread a WN captain said the MAX8 would have no issue from BUR. I just figured WN would be consistent with their LGB plan and surround LAX with unserved/underserved Hawaii markets before adding LAX and going against 6 other carriers. Also isn’t most WN Hawaii flying more O&D rather than connecting pax?
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120