SWA does't fly to the "biggies" airports ehh?

[WNjetdoc]

I've read on these boards where SWA's ontime is what it is because we don't fly to the big airports..seems like we fly to 5 of the top 10 most busy to me.


Top 10 Airports ranked by May 2003 Domestic Enplanements
Excel | CSV

Rank Airport Name Airport Code May-02 Apr-03 May-03 May-02 Rank
1 Hartsfield International, Atlanta ATL 2,968,082 2,843,101 2,995,956 1
2 O'Hare International, Chicago ORD 2,195,184 2,295,537 2,411,972 2
3 Dallas-Ft. Worth International DFW 1,929,617 1,814,101 1,981,534 3
4 Los Angeles International LAX 1,613,186 1,552,962 1,589,718 4
5 Phoenix Sky Harbor International PHX 1,375,927 1,501,934 1,539,564 5
6 Las Vegas-McCarran International LAS 1,324,102 1,336,595 1,361,404 7
7 Denver International DEN 1,334,409 1,246,915 1,182,070 6
8 Minneapolis-St. Paul International MSP 1,158,175 1,118,582 1,163,234 9
9 George Bush Intercontinental, Houston IAH 1,160,077 1,051,776 1,134,853 8
10 Detroit Metro Wayne County DTW 1,153,314 1,161,583 1,117,761 10

 

[UALDC767]

DOC,

Like I mentioned in another thread where you posted stuff like this....

um whats the fascination with stats from 2003?

And while 5 out of 10 is good, its still not 10 out of 10.

DC

 

[magsau]

DOC,

Like I mentioned in another thread where you posted stuff like this....

um whats the fascination with stats from 2003?

And while 5 out of 10 is good, its still not 10 out of 10.

DC

50% is a passing grade for a SWA employee
Just like that special school they all went to, it is the effort that counts. And 2003 is probably the newest news they get.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Caught in a time-warp, eh. Here's the latest "top 10" airports (Oct 2005), courtesy of BTS:

1 ATL 3,056,435
2 ORD 2,691,149
3 DFW 2,141,584
4 LAS 1,779,390
5 LAX 1,704,210
6 DIA 1,642,863
7 PHX 1,616,569
8 MSP 1,340,026
9 IAH 1,324,396
10 DTW 1,249,462

Jim

 

[Ch. 12]

Caught in a time-warp, eh. Here's the latest "top 10" airports (Oct 2005), courtesy of BTS:

1 ATL 3,056,435
2 ORD 2,691,149
3 DFW 2,141,584
4 LAS 1,779,390
5 LAX 1,704,210
6 DIA 1,642,863
7 PHX 1,616,569
8 MSP 1,340,026
9 IAH 1,324,396
10 DTW 1,249,462

Jim

Well I'll be gosh-durned. It looks like the same airports to me!! <_<

And UAL/mags...it DOES make a difference when three of the airports on the list account for a significant portion of their traffic. Just as you can say the exact same for UA...but this thread isn't saying that WN has a harder go of it than UA but rather that WN's ops are comparable enough to other carriers to make their ontime stats comparable. Not everything is an attack on UAL.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Well I'll be gosh-durned. It looks like the same airports to me!! <_<

Correctomundo - same places, a slightly different order is all that's changed.

Jim

 

[corl737]

I've read on these boards where SWA's ontime is what it is because we don't fly to the big airports..seems like we fly to 5 of the top 10 most busy to me.

True statement that SWA does fly to big airports. However, the reason for doing so is that there is substantial revenue to be generated from those that are selected. Note that most of those "biggies" SWA flies into have rather benign delay statistics. With the reduction of flights by USAirways at PHL, even that airport is becoming more in line with SWA's norm.

 

[USAir757]

I've always wondered how WN was able to manage being in PHL with their business model. Seems to me like putting a square peg in a round hole.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I haven't looked in quite a while, but last time I did WN was doing the same thing for schedule reliability (on time performance) as US - padding the block times to allow for delays. Looking at WN & US flights in the same market (PHL-PVD for example), the block times were about identical and occasionally WN would be longer.

Where WN sticks to the business model (or did when I last looked) is turn time - they schedule less time at the gate than US.

Jim

 

[corl737]

I've always wondered how WN was able to manage being in PHL with their business model. Seems to me like putting a square peg in a round hole.

Actually it's more like putting dollars in the till. It is amazing how much of a delay is tolerable when the bottom line benefits!

 

[SKY HIGH]

Actually it's more like putting dollars in the till. It is amazing how much of a delay is tolerable when the bottom line benefits!

LOL, tolerable delay? Like a few weeks ago, when winds were intolerable in MCO with everyone EXCEPT, Southwest. Airport closed?.....Ohh, we'll LAND.
Cross winds at PHL last week intolerable to everyone, EXCEPT Southwest.
I thought the bottom line was SAFETY, not benefits????

 

[corl737]

LOL, tolerable delay? [...]
I thought the bottom line was SAFETY, not benefits????

My choice of the word "tolerable" was directly related to the strategic planning assessing a cost tradeoff of having an aircraft sitting on the ground for an inordinate period of time. At some point, the expected delay crosses over the line into unprofitable. Those decisions are made by the marketing folks who decide whether or not to serve the airport. Once the go ahead is made it is implied that normal delays for that airport are acceptable and the pilots operate under the stated priorities of safety, service, efficiency, and schedule -- in that order.

Every operation you cited was conducted safely by Southwest Airlines. Had they not been the headlines would have certainly been huge. SWA had their "wake-up call" last December and I can assure you that every pilot carefully evaluates the operation they are about to undertake. Perhaps your pilots were unwilling to operate in PHL's reported crosswinds and that's perfectly within their right. Out in West Texas, however, we call winds like those "light and variable."

 

[mga707]

Out in West Texas, however, we call winds like those "light and variable."

I'll drink to that! Seems like every time I've landed/taken off at/from ELP it's been in the teeth of a hellacious crosswind. Look out the window and watch that wing goin' up and down...

 

[rjh]

Of the 5 busiest airports that SWA does fly to, none of them are subject to ATC or weather delays on a regular basis. Airports that consistently have ground delay programs multiple times each week are: ORD, ATL, SFO, PHL, EWR, and LGA.

"Pre-merger" America west flew to all of those airports (except LGA). For 2005, HP had A14 of 81.2%, WN had 80.7%.

In addition, LCC (the combined US/HP) was in 1st place (among "major" carriers, which does not include Hawaiian & Independence) for the 4th quarter of 2005. Not bad for an airline that has a huge presence in PHL & LGA; as well as regular operations to SFO, ORD, and EWR.

 

[corl737]

Of the 5 busiest airports that SWA does fly to, none of them are subject to ATC or weather delays on a regular basis. Airports that consistently have ground delay programs multiple times each week are: ORD, ATL, SFO, PHL, EWR, and LGA.

"Pre-merger" America west flew to all of those airports (except LGA). For 2005, HP had A14 of 81.2%, WN had 80.7%.

In addition, LCC (the combined US/HP) was in 1st place (among "major" carriers, which does not include Hawaiian & Independence) for the 4th quarter of 2005. Not bad for an airline that has a huge presence in PHL & LGA; as well as regular operations to SFO, ORD, and EWR.

I don't believe the size of the airport, nor the length of the delays encountered, are as vital to SWA as the predictability of those delays. Because SWA's aircraft perform many, many flights each day, getting an unexpected delay early in the day my result in the next 10 flights being late when compared to the published schedule. Thus, a single event multiplies.

Going to a big airport isn't a huge deal if the schedule is adjusted to reflect the reality. Check the LAS-PHX timetable to note that some flights are scheduled for 1:00, others 1:05 and still others 1:10 simply to accomodate expected traffic delays.