Southwest airlines leaving Newark airport

2253 views
64 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 9,321 posts
Southwest airlines leaving Newark airport
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 4:50 PM

Citing poor financial performance SWA leaving Newark airport ( EWR ).  Since SWA does not really compete with Amtrak short distance destinations this should have no effect on ridership ?

https://www.nj.com/news/2019/07/southwest-airlines-to-cease-flights-from-newark-airport.html 

  • Member since
    July, 2008
  • 1,299 posts
Posted by rdamon on Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:10 PM

"The airline currently has about 15 departures a day from Newark airport to destinations including Chicago, Nashville, Austin, Denver, Phoenix and St. Louis."

No BWI Flights listed

I am sure UAL has already jacked up their fares.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,866 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 1:30 AM

Might have a negative effect.  But did SWA consinder joint ticket with Amtrak to serve all corridor points?   Does any airline serving Newark or BWA have this?

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,155 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 1:56 AM

In my 700,000 FF air miles, Newark rated #1 for full throttle take off or aborted landings to avoid traffic that was in the way.  

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 9,321 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 12:03 PM

CMStPnP

In my 700,000 FF air miles, Newark rated #1 for full throttle take off or aborted landings to avoid traffic that was in the way.  

 

It is not that simple !

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • From: Laurel MD
  • 57 posts
Posted by Warren J on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 1:44 PM

I believe that the problems with the Boeing 737MAX forced Southwest to drop Newark; Southwest already flies from LaGuardia and Islip and Newark was not a hub for the airline as BWI is.  With a shortage of aircraft due to grounding of the 737MAX, Southwest felt it was necessary to realign its older aircraft where they would be most effective.

The only airline that had an agreement with AMTRAK was United.  Whenever there were delays involving flights between DC and NYC, United "reticketed" passengers over to AMTRAK.  Dulles International and Liberty Newark International are both major United hubs.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,866 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 1:48 PM

In the destant past, USAir had an interline agreemente with Amtrak for BWA Airport.  I don't know how long it lasted.

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:06 PM
According to FAA’s Air Traffic Control by the Numbers 2019, the average number of go arounds at Newark International from 2014 through 2018 was 2/10s of 1 percent, which was the same as 13 of the 30 core (largest by operations) airports in the U.S., e.g. DFW, IAH, LAS, LAX, etc.  San Diego had the highest percentage of go arounds at .6 percent, followed by LGA and DCA at .5 percent.  JFK was .4 percent.
 
“Go-Arounds occur when an aircraft is on approach to the runway but suddenly aborts the landing. This occurs if there is a sudden shift in the wind, an obstruction on the runway, or possibly, the aircraft inadvertently overshooting the runway. Go-arounds result in the aircraft returning to the landing queue to attempt another landing.”
 
Newark was Number 5 with respect to diversions, which occur when a flight is routed to a different airport than its original destination. This occurs usually due to convective weather.  Newark had an annual average of 655 diversions from 2014 through 2018 compared to 1,274 at ORD, 1,508 at DFW, 1,066 at ATL, and 991 at DEN.
 
Newark is a busy airport.  But not as busy as ORD, ATL, and LAX, which averaged more than 700,000 controlled flights per year from 2014 through 2018.  Newark was 11th with an average of 427,414. 
 
Newark topped the list of delays.  It had an average of 30,176 delays per year from 2014 through 2018.  The next highest delays were recorded at LGA, SFO, ORD, and JFK.  Weather was the major culprit in these delays.  EWR, LGA, SFO, and ORD accounted for half of all the delays of the core 30 from 2014 through 2018.
 
Of the 30 core airports, ORD, LGA, EWR, and DFW had the highest number of cancellations in 2017 and 2018.  They averaged more than 6,000 cancellations in each year and accounted for 33 percent of the cancellations at the core 30.   Again, weather was a major factor. 
  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,155 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:32 PM

blue streak 1
It is not that simple !

It is that simple when your on the plane aborting.

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,155 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:33 PM

JPS1
2014 through 2018

If your responding to me, wrong date range.   It would be closer to 1997 to 2001.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,083 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:44 PM

CMStPnP
In my 700,000 FF air miles, Newark rated #1 for full throttle take off or aborted landings to avoid traffic that was in the way.

You're assuming it was avoiding traffic.  Probably something quite different.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/nyregion/trying-to-quiet-the-noise-that-comes-with-newark-airport.html

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:49 PM

CMStPnP
 JPS1 2014 through 2018 

If your responding to me, wrong date range.   It would be closer to 1997 to 2001. 

 

You remember Newark International operational data from 1997 to 2001?   You must have a good memory.

Your comment, "Newark rated....." suggests now or recent past. 

Other than your memory what is the evidence for the claim that Newark is or was rated #1 for full throttle take off or aborted landings to avoid traffic that was in the way?  
 
You have not presented any data to show that the go arounds in 1997 to 2001 were significantly different than from the 2014 to 2018 data.  Given the dramatic growth in commercial air traffic since 1997 - 2001, it is possible that the number of aborted landings in Newark were even less than those incurred from 2014 to 2018.  
 
One would have to be on the flight deck to know the throttle settings for takeoff.  And h/she sould have to be turned into ATC to gain a picture of the traffic being worked by departure control.  
 
 
 
 
  • Member since
    August, 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 1,678 posts
Posted by n012944 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 8:31 AM

Warren J

I believe that the problems with the Boeing 737MAX forced Southwest to drop Newark; Southwest already flies from LaGuardia and Islip and Newark was not a hub for the airline as BWI is.  With a shortage of aircraft due to grounding of the 737MAX, Southwest felt it was necessary to realign its older aircraft where they would be most effective. 

It sounds like Southwest is using the MAX issues as a scapegoat for poor performance of the Newark station.  Southwest is adding flights to Hawaii, so they are still expanding even with the groundings.  If the MAX was the key to making Newark work, the station was barley hanging on to begin with.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,083 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 01, 2019 8:46 AM

n012944
It sounds like Southwest is using the MAX issues as a scapegoat for poor performance of the Newark station.

Considering the actual problems the MAX had, and the relative ease with which solutions were found, I think this is ringingly correct.

On the other hand, it may be that routine operations in and out of EWR will need to be conducted in parts of the flight envelope where the unique compromises in the MAX design become more than usually hazardous, even with the software changes.  So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,640 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:27 AM

Overmod

 

   So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis.
 

Or did you mean Patience?   Oops - Sign

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,083 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:38 AM

charlie hebdo
 
Overmod

So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis. 

Or did you mean Patience?  Oops - Sign

I don't get it.  Please de-whooooooosh me.

"Operational" is in the Bridgman sense: a decision taken strictly for technical reasons, probably in a restricted context.  "Prudence" wasn't a name from a Beatles song, it was meant as 'avoiding what may be a nonexistent technical risk just to be sure it wasn't nonexistent in some situations after all'.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,640 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 01, 2019 10:33 AM

Sorry,  it was a pretty obscure reference to a music duo named,   "Patience and Prudence" from long ago.  I think they were a one hit wonder. 

https://images.app.goo.gl/Sbfo1jBJpErvH5YP6

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,083 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 01, 2019 10:51 AM

charlie hebdo
Sorry,  it was a pretty obscure reference to a music duo named "Patience and Prudence" from long ago.

Thanks!  (They actually weren't that bad!)

Figured it wouldn't be a play on Marlon Percy!

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,155 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:14 PM

JPS1
You remember Newark International operational data from 1997 to 2001?   You must have a good memory.

Nooo, I remember the aborted landings and takeoffs and what I rated the airport.  I don't carry around FAA statisical manuals with me when I fly.   I prefer a lighter suitcase when I travel.

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 569 posts
Posted by Backshop on Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:35 PM

Overmod

 

 
n012944
It sounds like Southwest is using the MAX issues as a scapegoat for poor performance of the Newark station.

 

Considering the actual problems the MAX had, and the relative ease with which solutions were found, I think this is ringingly correct.

On the other hand, it may be that routine operations in and out of EWR will need to be conducted in parts of the flight envelope where the unique compromises in the MAX design become more than usually hazardous, even with the software changes.  So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis.

 

You are correct.  The Max problems have nothing to do with leaving EWR, that is just an excuse.  They fly to other NYC-area airports, so losing EWR is really no loss.  Any SW loyalty flyer will just go to a different airport.

Airframes have a certain percentage of "full power" takeoffs that they have to make.  The ACARS tells them when to do them.  It has nothing to do with which airport it is.  You'd be surprised at how little deviation pilots can make from SOP.

Once the software is fully certified, the MAX will not fly any differently from any other 737.  There are some airports, due to short runways or terrain features, that require "special handling", but EWR isn't one of them.  SAN and SNA are.

If you want to hear some amusing ATC conversations, Google "Kennedy Steve" on youtube.  There's someone who enjoys his (very high pressure) job.

  • Member since
    July, 2008
  • 1,299 posts
Posted by rdamon on Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:38 PM

Of course you are not much safer when you get offf the ground at EWR with all the NYC traffic.

I am not a frequent EWR visitor, but as a percentage of times visited vs. go arounds I would have to put SFO on top with MSP 2nd.  Had two wave offs on a ATL-MSP flight due to incursions.

The FAA has been working with the problem children, closing taxiways and identifying hazard points much better.

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14895&omniRss=fact_sheetsAoc&cid=103_F_S

 

 

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 569 posts
Posted by Backshop on Thursday, August 01, 2019 1:27 PM

rdamon

Of course you are not much safer when you get offf the ground at EWR with all the NYC traffic.

 

It's amazing how the national news media covers up all those midair collisions.

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 1:28 PM

rdamon
 Of course you are not much safer when you get offf the ground at EWR with all the NYC traffic.

I am not a frequent EWR visitor, but as a percentage of times visited vs. go arounds I would have to put SFO on top with MSP 2nd.  Had two wave offs on a ATL-MSP flight due to incursions. 

As per "go arounds", here is the first paragraph from my posting on the subject.

"According to FAA’s Air Traffic Control by the Numbers 2019, the average number of go arounds at Newark International from 2014 through 2018 was 2/10s of 1 percent, which was the same as 13 of the 30 core (largest by operations) airports in the U.S., e.g. DFW, IAH, LAS, LAX, etc.  San Diego had the highest percentage of go arounds at .6 percent, followed by LGA and DCA at .5 percent.  JFK was .4 percent."

Go arounds at SFO were .4 percent between 2014 and 2018.  They were .2 percent at ATL as well as Newark and 12 other airports in the top 30 airports where the FAA records them.

I worked as a commercial pilot for three years in the middle 70s.  I regularly few in and out of Teterboro, which is just north of Newark.  I felt safe operating at Teterboro, which was in the New York TCA at that time.  I believe it still is.  Every aircraft in the TCA was under positive control.  At Brainard Field in Hartford, where I was based, I had to mix it up with controlled and uncontrolled flights operated by the very experienced to the very inexperienced pilots.  

  • Member since
    July, 2008
  • 1,299 posts
Posted by rdamon on Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:02 PM

I'm sure you have some interesting stories.

It would be interesting to see the go around stats for collision avoidance vs. weather.  SAN gets on the list when the fog rolls in.

 

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 569 posts
Posted by Backshop on Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:18 PM

rdamon

I'm sure you have some interesting stories.

It would be interesting to see the go around stats for collision avoidance vs. weather.  SAN gets on the list when the fog rolls in.

 

 

SAN is San Diego.  San Francisco is SFO.

  • Member since
    July, 2008
  • 1,299 posts
Posted by rdamon on Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:41 PM

JPS1

 

As per "go arounds", here is the first paragraph from my posting on the subject.

"According to FAA’s Air Traffic Control by the Numbers 2019, the average number of go arounds at Newark International from 2014 through 2018 was 2/10s of 1 percent, which was the same as 13 of the 30 core (largest by operations) airports in the U.S., e.g. DFW, IAH, LAS, LAX, etc.  San Diego had the highest percentage of go arounds at .6 percent, followed by LGA and DCA at .5 percent.  JFK was .4 percent."

This is the reason for my SAN comment.

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 3:33 PM

rdamon
 It would be interesting to see the go around stats for collision avoidance vs. weather.  SAN gets on the list when the fog rolls in. 

Most of my go arounds were because of collision avoidance, i.e. the guy ahead of me did not clear the runway quick enough or another pilot was cleared onto the runway by ATC, but did not hussle as quickly as ATC had asked for.    

It was rare to have a forced go around because of weather even when I was flying; it is rarer today.     

The instrument approach at Brainard Field in Hartford was a VOR/NDB approach.  If I did not see the field as I went past the NDB at 660 feet, I knew that I had missed the approach and had to follow the published procedure to go around for another try.  The Instrument Approach Chart contained the missed approach procedure. 

A go around to avoid another airplane or an object on the runway is different, in my mind, than a missed approach.  The former usually is initiated when ATC tells you go to go around or you see something on the runway that tells you to get out of there.  A missed instrument approach, as long as one is paying attention, is a planned procedure. 
  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,155 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, August 01, 2019 6:57 PM

Backshop
It's amazing how the national news media covers up all those midair collisions.

Some are on you tube.....lol

Also I know because Verizon used to be in the Braniff HQ at DFW, they have a place at DFW called "Founders Square".   It is for airport fans.   You can park your car on the airfield and watch the planes taxi and takeoff and they have an audio system where you can listen in to the ATC as well as the ground traffic control.    It is pretty nice they have a shelter and picnic tables and it was pretty well kept up.........last time I stopped there.     It was right next to work.   Otherwise I would not have went there.    The former Braniff HQ was really nice, Hotel, Pool and Conference Center, very nice office for Verizon.   Employees could use the Pool and the Gym they had there.   They spun off that portion of Verizon to Dex Media and I think it is called Dex One now or something stupid.....they went bankrupt like 2-3 times in a row to discharge over $10 Billion in debt.    Just went up in smoke....bondholders were left with worthless paper.

So at Newark I remember one vividly.  Chirped the tires on the runway once then it was full throttle rocket ship up towards the moon.    Someone taxied out in front of our landing plane.     Second incident was less dramatic we were on approach and he gunned the engines for fast altitude climb and fly around.    Third incident I only vaguely remember but it was the circle the airport repeatedly via repeated excuses over the intercom, threatened diversion to another airport..........then finally land type deal.

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 9,321 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 7:32 PM

There were a spike of go arounds at ATL airport in the late 1970s  It was due to United airlines not using any brakes thereby staying on the runway longer. Unconfirmed reports that UAL had a temporary shortage of brakes.  We soon gave UAL planes a little more separation when following them to ATL airport.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 16,653 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 01, 2019 7:49 PM

blue streak 1
There were a spike of go arounds at ATL airport in the late 1970s  It was due to United airlines not using any brakes thereby staying on the runway longer. Unconfirmed reports that UAL had a temporary shortage of brakes.  We soon gave UAL planes a little more separation when following them to ATL airport.

Remember flying into Atlanta on a flight from Daytona Beach in the late 1970's.  Low cloud ceiling in the Atlanta area.  My flight broke out of the clouds and a couple of hundred yards to my right is another plane.  We fly along parallel to each other for a period of time - I am expecting one or the other of us to turn and then the other will follow - NOPE!.  Next thing you know we both are touching down on the parallel runways.

Another time in the middle 80's was flying Eastern from Baltimore to Jacksonville.  On Time into Atlanta.  Board the connecting flight for a On Time departure - then we are instructed to return to the airport waiting area.  The ATC system crashed and lost every planes flight plans out of Atlanta.  Six hours later we were reboarded and took our place in the 'conga line' from the terminal to the end of the runway for take off.  On 'our' runway I counted 51 planes from our departure terminal to the end of the runway as we took out takeoff roll.  One could see over to the other runway and they had a similar back up.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy