channa

I frequently fly redeyes, and they're often packed (and sometimes oversold).

Several years ago, people avoided the redeyes -- whether business or leisure, and the logic that they're simply for respositioning is true. But today, I see a lot of people taking advantage of them for time purposes: both business travellers who arrive and go to work, or leisure travellers who enjoy the fact that the redeye saves a night of hotel costs (or a day of vacation time).

LAS-BWI, OAK-BWI, LAX-BWI, OAK-MDW, LAX-ORD, LAS-ORD are a few that probably would do just fine. WN is missing the boat here.

Mr. July

The perception that redeyes aren't heavily patronized is pretty outdated. Everyone - including lots of small children, I've found - takes them.

I think you have an added incentive for BWI. Your public transit options for late night flights pretty well dry up, but a redeye arrival would give you added connections to the AM MARCs to Union Station.

JS

That's because, overall, the percentage of leisure travelers exceeds that of the business travelers for any airline. If I remember correctly, it's around 80/20. The reason is that most people rarely, if ever, take a business trip by air, whereas most people do fly somewhere on vacation every now and then.

wahooflyer

I agree. It's all a matter of personal preference whether you like redeyes or not, but enough passengers take redeyes on other airlines that Southwest really is missing out on the opportunity.

I love redeyes myself as LAX is typically less crowded, especially in T1, after 10 p.m.; I can get a full day's work in on the west coast on Day 1 and then a full day's work in the East Coast on Day 2; and I sleep well on planes so 4 hours sleep is enough to get me by on Day 2.

Almost all of my redeyes on AA and US have been very full. I can't imagine WN redeyes being any different in terms of loads.

nsx

IIRC, WN's very first transcon fight was a one-time OAK to BWI red-eye. Anybody here know for sure? Better yet, does anyone know why the trial run was done as a red-eye?

DataBaseDude

I have been on several red-eyes out of LAS recently and they were all almost full. We're talking 90%+ of a 767 full for a midnight flight.
Shouldn't they at least be running flights out of LAS in the middle of the night?

lvfs

HP has the market cornered on red-eyes out of LAS . HP calls LAS a hub, but it's really more of a focus city, as many non-stops ex-LAS on HP are only on red-eyes, even to ABQ which gets you in at like 3 am, when ABQ is rockin' .

I've taken my share of red-eyes, though rarely by choice. I've only taken then when they were the only flights available or when the cost difference was so great to make them the only cost-effective flights.

I hope WN doesn't add many red-eyes, but would like more westbound late flights into LAS.

DataBaseDude

Out of all the Red eyes that I have taken out of LAS not a single one was on HP, in fact I don't even remember them as being an option to any of the cities that I have flown to out of LAS on a red eye.

formeraa

Certainly, HP has the MOST red-eyes out of LAS. However, if you are going to a city that HP doesn't serve out of LAS, then they won't be an option.

WN LUVS U

You are correct, that was the first flight. This is a guess...I believe it was because it's cooler at night. The cooler the atmosphere, the less an aircraft weighs. Therefore, it didn't require as much fuel for the trial run (as to avoid a flag stop for fuel.)

CalItalian

I love red eyes. When I travel to the east coast I feel it is such a waste of a day if I start in Los Angeles at 6 AM and don't end up on the east coast until mid-afternoon. This way I get in a full day at my destination.

On vacation, my friends and I will not consider any flight if it isn't a red-eye going east bound. Southwest not having them is one reason I don't consider them for travel to the east coast.

With T1 at LAX being a fairly small terminal for so many WN flights vs. other top WN airports by flight frequency it seems a no-brainer that this would be the perfect time for them to expand.

The red-eye flights I've been on recently were also fairly packed.

Andy2

I'm glad this topic generated so many replies, but my actual question wasn't so much whether Southwest itself should operate the redeyes, but instead why doesn't it force ATA to continue operating such flights from west coast cities to MDW. ATA still has a presence in LAX and LAS, I believe, even though it doesn't fly its metal into MDW. ATA was actually pretty good at operating red-eyes. The essence of a code-share is to generate traffic for each airline and it seems that tons of passengers would fly ATA late night flights and connect to Southwest's massive early morning MDW schedule. I know I would, and I agree that every red-eye I have been on this year was very full.

DHAST

I'm calling BS on this one, as I've never heard that a cooler atmosphere makes an object weigh less. What does happen is that a cooler atmosphere will give you a lower density altitude, which in general makes an aircraft perform better for a given altitude (until a certain point, at which point performance begins to deteriorate). There are several reasons why night flying can be perferable to day flying, but aircraft weight is not one that I've heard of.

WN LUVS U

I can't give you a technical answer because it is not my area of expertise.

The higher the temperature, the more an aircraft weighs, relative to distance need for take-off. The four elements needed for take off are drag, lift, thrust, and gravity. When the temperature increases, it effects those four elements. With the amount of fuel needed for a long haul, I originally thought they did it at night as to not to effect the lift. My thought is valid, but reason was incorrect.

To correct myself, it had nothing to do with weight, although that is a valid concern...like in ABQ. They did it at night, according to my resources, because there was less congestion with ATC.

DHAST

Ask your sources about a term called "density altitude," like I mentioned in an earlier post. Aircraft performance (takeoff distance, landing distance, climb rate, cruise airspeed, fuel burn) are predicated on a term called "density altitude." In short, EVERYTHING an aircraft does is based on how dense the surrounding air is. The thinner the air, the harder the airplane has to work, and in translation, the worse it performs. Things like warm air and low pressure have an adverse affect on performance, and likewise, things like cold air and high pressure have a "positive" affect on performance. The way to gain a "total measurement" of the combined affects of temperature and pressure on performance is with a term called density altitude. That figure is what's referenced in all the FOM's and ops manuals, and takes into account field altitude, pressure, and outside air temperature. It's pretty simple for the airline guys... Part 121 requires a runway analysis, which means they are not permitted to operate on a particular runway unless they've derived performance numbers for it. The way it works is that at a particular airport, for a particular runway, the pilots have a book of performance numbers. They then look at an index for air pressure and temperature, and come up with a maximum weight for a particular runway. Cold, high pressure days will allow for the maximum weight for a runway, and warm, low pressure days will allow for the minimum weight for a runway. They then take this total weight and figure out aircraft weight, fuel load, bags, pax, and cargo permitted to be carried.

Hope that helps... and btw, the aircraft still weighs the same