Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3703806/

Topic: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Ram025
Posted 2007-11-14 08:35:13 and read 9920 times.

Ever since southwest thought about moving from SEA to BFI, I have thought about maybe another carrier moving there. Maybe if the Terminal is upgraded Skybus or G4 could move there. What do you think?

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Flybynight
Posted 2007-11-14 09:11:16 and read 9825 times.

Would be nice to have an alternative, but with SEA expanding with a new runway, I doubt it will happen. It would likely mean changes to the traffic flow in the Georgetown area of Seattle as well.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2007-11-14 09:58:58 and read 9711 times.

I don't imagine Boeing would want an airline at BFI. Then the airport would have comply with 14 CFR part 139.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: SkyexRamper
Posted 2007-11-14 10:54:45 and read 9593 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I don't imagine Boeing would want an airline at BFI. Then the airport would have comply with 14 CFR part 139.

I'm sure Boeing could lease it's fire department out for the entire airport use.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2007-11-14 11:00:09 and read 9570 times.

The Port of Seattle wouldn't allow it. They have a monopoly on airline service in the Puget Sound region. WN tried to back out of SEA and it didn't work. The only thing that WN did, IIRC, is reduction of service at SEA. Also, don't forget the big NIMBY's around BFI and PAE, that killed the whole BFI thing. I think WN tried to move to PAE after the BFI flop and that didn't work either??

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Yellowtail
Posted 2007-11-14 12:15:36 and read 9466 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I don't imagine Boeing would want an airline at BFI. Then the airport would have comply with 14 CFR part 139.

I can see it now....a daily A319 landing at the "enemies" camp every day

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Flybynight
Posted 2007-11-14 12:30:23 and read 9391 times.



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 4):
The only thing that WN did, IIRC, is reduction of service at SEA

I thought WN was increasing service out of SEA. They are starting a new non stop to Denver to compete with UA and Frontier.

Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 5):
I can see it now....a daily A319 landing at the "enemies" camp every day

All sorts of cargo plane fly into Boeing Field everyday. I see them from my downtown Seattle office window. Besides, there isn't an actual Boeing factory at BFI. I believe it is really just a delivery area for Boeing's single-aisle planes.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: RobK
Posted 2007-11-14 15:05:41 and read 9171 times.



Quoting Flybynight (Reply 6):
Besides, there isn't an actual Boeing factory at BFI. I believe it is really just a delivery area for Boeing's single-aisle planes.

Correct, but all 737 flight testing takes place at BFI.

R

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Wedgetail737
Posted 2007-11-14 15:36:06 and read 9105 times.

The PAE thing is back on for possible commercial service. I don't know where it stands right now, though.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: CirrusDriver
Posted 2007-11-14 16:01:03 and read 9027 times.

Would be nice however, the Port of Seattle Mafia would send they're goons out after them!

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2007-11-14 18:21:39 and read 8895 times.



Quoting Ram025 (Thread starter):
Ever since southwest thought about moving from SEA to BFI, I have thought about maybe another carrier moving there. Maybe if the Terminal is upgraded Skybus or G4 could move there. What do you think?

Not going to happen. Port of Seattle (owner of SEA) and King County (owner of BFI) negotiated a land use deal for an old train track that runs up the east side of Lake Washington. Part of the terms of that deal was that Port Of Seattle has to approve any changes to airline operations at BFI. And, since SEA is a cash cow for Port of Seattle, they will never approve it.

Quoting Flybynight (Reply 6):
Besides, there isn't an actual Boeing factory at BFI. I believe it is really just a delivery area for Boeing's single-aisle planes.

Besides 737 deliveries, it also has most of the flight testing. Some flight test is done at PAE to get things in the air but it all moves to BFI in short order. There's also Boeing military flight test, a whole whack of Boeing R&D, and a modifications hanger.

Tom.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: FRNT787
Posted 2007-11-14 19:09:53 and read 8834 times.

I highly doubt any airline would be allowed to operate of Boeing Field. But if one did, I could easily see Alaska shifting some flights over there as well to protect (or gain) market share, similar to AA at Love Field.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: MQTmxguy
Posted 2007-11-14 20:33:48 and read 8740 times.

Well technically there already is...

http://www.kenmoreair.com/

I think they are part 135 but still, they have scheduled service to FHR, CLM, ODW, and ORS from BFI.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2007-11-14 22:45:42 and read 7879 times.



Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 5):
I can see it now....a daily A319 landing at the "enemies" camp every day

??? It's not uncommon to have 737s at Toulouse and Hamburg...

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Ward86IND
Posted 2007-11-15 00:12:14 and read 7365 times.



Quoting Aircellist (Reply 13):
??? It's not uncommon to have 737s at Toulouse and Hamburg...

Yeah but it's not like either of those are "Airbus Field."

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: PAHS200
Posted 2007-11-15 02:53:29 and read 6533 times.



Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 14):

both Toulouse and Hamburg are major airbus fields. with Toulouse being the world HQ for airbus

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2007-11-15 03:57:12 and read 6163 times.



Quoting Flybynight (Reply 6):
I thought WN was increasing service out of SEA.

Nope. Reason: Very high landing fees because of the expansion of SEA and the 3rd runway. WN voted for it, but now does not want to pay for it. Hence as to why the reduction. Adding DEN flights is a very, very small increase for WN because its an additional city. So nothing has really changed for WN in SEA.

Quoting RobK (Reply 7):
Correct, but all 737 flight testing takes place at BFI.

Ehh, I don't know about that. But the hangars are for flightline, and it's also the 757/737 Delivery Center. (It's still called that even though the 757 line is gone.)

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 11):
I highly doubt any airline would be allowed to operate of Boeing Field.

With the Port of Seattle 'monopoly' in place, flights from BFI won't be happening anytime soon.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: RobK
Posted 2007-11-15 05:01:05 and read 5709 times.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Besides 737 deliveries, it also has most of the flight testing. Some flight test is done at PAE to get things in the air but it all moves to BFI in short order.

No. 737 testing is done from BFI and 747/767/777 testing is done from PAE. Period. The only times you'll see brand new Boeing heavies at BFI is when

1. Boeing needs to do some experimental tests (like the Air India 772LR recently).
2. They're too heavy to make their destination in one hit from PAE with a full tank of fuel due to their comparatively short runway and so sometimes use BFI instead of SEA (the last Kenya Airways 772ER being a good example).

R

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2007-11-15 05:08:47 and read 5645 times.



Quoting RobK (Reply 17):
...737 testing is done from BFI...

I thought that testing was done at RNT and final touch-ups/workable MEL's or what have you were completed prior to delivery at the Delivery Center at BFI.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: UPS757Pilot
Posted 2007-11-15 06:38:34 and read 4898 times.



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):
1. Boeing needs to do some experimental tests (like the Air India 772LR recently).

I saw that airplane there recently. What tests were being done? We fly 757s and 767s to BFI daily at UPS. ABX as well but FedEx stays at SEA.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Tod
Posted 2007-11-15 06:49:18 and read 4805 times.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 10):
SEA is a cash cow for Port of Seattle

 checkmark 

Funny how the PoS still needed to raise their portion of the county property taxes this week anyway.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: RobK
Posted 2007-11-15 06:53:12 and read 4754 times.



Quoting UPS757Pilot (Reply 19):
What tests were being done?

Just some new systems, nothing exciting.

R

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2007-11-15 18:35:06 and read 3626 times.



Quoting RobK (Reply 17):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Besides 737 deliveries, it also has most of the flight testing. Some flight test is done at PAE to get things in the air but it all moves to BFI in short order.

No. 737 testing is done from BFI and 747/767/777 testing is done from PAE. Period. The only times you'll see brand new Boeing heavies at BFI is when

1. Boeing needs to do some experimental tests (like the Air India 772LR recently).

I should have been a little clearer. *Production* flight testing for widebodies is done from PAE, period. Development flight testing (747LCF, 777-200LR, 787, 747-8) is at BFI although, for obvious reasons, they visit PAE too. There are branches of the flight test organization in both places.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):
Quoting RobK (Reply 17):
...737 testing is done from BFI...

I thought that testing was done at RNT and final touch-ups/workable MEL's or what have you were completed prior to delivery at the Delivery Center at BFI.

First flight for a 737 goes from RNT to BFI. All further flights are out of BFI, as far as I know.

Tom.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2007-11-15 19:03:39 and read 3596 times.



Quoting UPS757Pilot (Reply 19):
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):
1. Boeing needs to do some experimental tests (like the Air India 772LR recently).

I saw that airplane there recently. What tests were being done? We fly 757s and 767s to BFI daily at UPS. ABX as well but FedEx stays at SEA.

I never said that, UPS757Pilot. Be sure you quote the right person in the right box.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 10):
SEA is a cash cow for Port of Seattle

 checkmark  Hence the 'monopoly' that POS has on the Puget Sound Region.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 22):
First flight for a 737 goes from RNT to BFI. All further flights are out of BFI, as far as I know.

I hope F9Animal can chime in on this since he is at Boeing....

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: SLCUT2777
Posted 2007-11-15 19:21:28 and read 3565 times.

Didn't I also hear correctly that King County was going to make a trade with the Port Authority of Seattle for some Parkland/Openspace and the Port Authority would get BFI in return?

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Mason
Posted 2007-11-15 20:34:57 and read 3498 times.

It's true, most (read all) 737s go from RNT to BFI on their first flight. Rarely will you ever see a 737 landing at RNT. Anyone ever seen one? Did they come in from over the lake to 15?

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2007-11-15 23:00:02 and read 3497 times.



Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 24):
Didn't I also hear correctly that King County was going to make a trade with the Port Authority of Seattle for some Parkland/Openspace and the Port Authority would get BFI in return?

They did, sort of. King County gets the use of an unused railway right-of-way that Port Of Seattle owns. In return, Port Of Seattle gets more control over what happens at BFI (although I think King County still actually owns it).

Quoting Mason (Reply 25):
It's true, most (read all) 737s go from RNT to BFI on their first flight. Rarely will you ever see a 737 landing at RNT. Anyone ever seen one? Did they come in from over the lake to 15?

Supposedly, Boeing used to land 747's at RNT to show off the short field performance (at very low weight, obviously). Urban legend has it that they quit doing that after one of them came in just a tad short on 15 and snapped the center gear off on the edge of the runway.

Tom.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: EMB170
Posted 2007-11-16 08:24:33 and read 3390 times.

IIRC, didn't both AS and WN at some point over the last few years each try to move their operations to BFI, only to have the Seattle Port Authority tell them no? Both carriers were rather miffed at the Port Authority, if I remember...

EMB170, who has only flown into Seattle once, and then on CO.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Threepoint
Posted 2007-11-16 13:58:28 and read 3297 times.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 26):
Urban legend has it that they quit doing that after one of them came in just a tad short on 15 and snapped the center gear off on the edge of the runway.

S'truth, no urban legend. In December 1969, the 3rd test 747 (piloted by a pilot overcompensating for the short 5000' runway) struck a seawall before the threshold with the right main gear and tipped to the side on the runway, scraping the engine nacelles along the ground.

The 747 stopped with approx 3800 feet of runway remaining.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2007-11-17 01:05:53 and read 3128 times.



Quoting Mason (Reply 25):
It's true, most (read all) 737s go from RNT to BFI on their first flight. Rarely will you ever see a 737 landing at RNT. Anyone ever seen one? Did they come in from over the lake to 15?

Yes, they have landed in Renton, and do so from the south. Not real common, but it's been done.

Quoting EMB170 (Reply 27):
IIRC, didn't both AS and WN at some point over the last few years each try to move their operations to BFI, only to have the Seattle Port Authority tell them no? Both carriers were rather miffed at the Port Authority, if I remember...

WN put out a press release and a plan to move to an 8-gate terminal they would construct at BFI. AS said they'd need to move many, many flights there to compete. Both were likely posturing to get what they want (WN - lower SEA landing fees; AS - WN staying at SEA to help pay the bills).

In the end, it was all nixed.

-Dave

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Gunsontheroof
Posted 2007-11-17 01:27:26 and read 3111 times.



Quoting Flybynight (Reply 6):
Besides, there isn't an actual Boeing factory at BFI. I believe it is really just a delivery area for Boeing's single-aisle planes.

There are no aircraft factories there today, but quite a bit of other work gets done at Boeing facilities adjacent to the field. I seem to recall some F-22 related work happening at the building across E. Marginal Way from the military test ramp.

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 8):
The PAE thing is back on for possible commercial service. I don't know where it stands right now, though.

Eventually, that's what it's going to come to. Expensive infrastructure improvements and proximity to SEA will keep BFI off airline schedules for the foreseeable future. PAE is a much more attractive alternative...lots of room for improvements and an attractive alternative to SEA for many more people than BFI.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 26):
Supposedly, Boeing used to land 747's at RNT to show off the short field performance (at very low weight, obviously). Urban legend has it that they quit doing that after one of them came in just a tad short on 15 and snapped the center gear off on the edge of the runway.

All that and more: http://www.amazon.com/747-Creating-W...UTF8&s=books&qid=1195291589&sr=8-1

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Suprazachair
Posted 2007-11-17 03:47:21 and read 3043 times.



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 29):
Yes, they have landed in Renton, and do so from the south. Not real common, but it's been done.

You sure about that? I'm pretty sure on the rare occassion they land 'em at RNT they land from the north. From the south there's a blast fence and displaced threshold...

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2007-11-17 07:08:41 and read 2972 times.



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 29):
In the end, it was all nixed.

And AS won that battle.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: A342
Posted 2007-11-17 13:29:41 and read 2889 times.



Quoting Aircellist (Reply 13):
??? It's not uncommon to have 737s at Toulouse and Hamburg...



Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 14):
Yeah but it's not like either of those are "Airbus Field."



Quoting PAHS200 (Reply 15):
both Toulouse and Hamburg are major airbus fields. with Toulouse being the world HQ for airbus

Careful, guys! XFW is indeed an "Airbus field", all commercial traffic goes to HAM. But yes, in Toulouse, both Airbus and the city's commercial services operate from one airport - TLS.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2007-11-17 13:43:40 and read 2871 times.

West Coast Airlines, one of the 3 airlines that merged in 1968 to form Air West, was based and operated at BFI. I think they moved to SEA about the time they became Hughes Airwest in 1970 since there was no possibility of getting connecting traffic from other airlines at BFI.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John F. Ciesla




Quoting PAHS200 (Reply 15):
Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 14):

both Toulouse and Hamburg are major airbus fields. with Toulouse being the world HQ for airbus

Airbus facilities are at Finkenwerder, about as far from HAM's commercial airport as SEA is from BFI or Renton. No different than UA A320s landing at SEA.

[Edited 2007-11-17 14:14:58]

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2007-11-17 15:28:15 and read 2791 times.



Quoting Suprazachair (Reply 31):
You sure about that? I'm pretty sure on the rare occassion they land 'em at RNT they land from the north. From the south there's a blast fence and displaced threshold...

Yes, I've watched them land from the south, and more recently, seen many business jets land from the south as well. I've never seen them land from the north, though they may have. I think that an approach over Mercer Island ("Money Island") would be undesirable by the nimby's though. The south approach is over working class areas, so no problem.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 32):
And AS won that battle.

You're assuming WN actually wanted to move to BFI, which is open to debate. Certainly, if they received lower fees at SEA due to their "stunt", then I'd say that they won as well, wouldn't you?

-Dave

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2007-11-17 15:36:20 and read 2774 times.



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 35):
You're assuming WN actually wanted to move to BFI, which is open to debate. Certainly, if they received lower fees at SEA due to their "stunt", then I'd say that they won as well, wouldn't you?

WN wanted lower landing fees, did they get it? That, I don't know, but I don't think so. It was more of a threat (a stupid one after they voted FOR the airport improvements and wanted to scram) than a PR stunt, the way I see it. AS got into the 'debate' knowing if WN gets to go, why not them. AS also knew for a fact that the BFI move was never going to happen.

All WN did, AFAIK, is reduce flights into/out of SEA. They did not want to pay more on the landing fees.

IMO, its ridiculous to vote for something that you intend to pay for and then when the fees kick in, cry foul and try to run. It does not work that way, and WN sure did learn a lesson on that and lost at the end.

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2007-11-17 15:43:46 and read 2756 times.



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36):
WN wanted lower landing fees, did they get it? That, I don't know, but I don't think so. It was more of a threat (a stupid one after they voted FOR the airport improvements and wanted to scram) than a PR stunt, the way I see it. AS got into the 'debate' knowing if WN gets to go, why not them. AS also knew for a fact that the BFI move was never going to happen.

All WN did, AFAIK, is reduce flights into/out of SEA. They did not want to pay more on the landing fees.

IMO, its ridiculous to vote for something that you intend to pay for and then when the fees kick in, cry foul and try to run. It does not work that way, and WN sure did learn a lesson on that and lost at the end.

I don't care to re-debate the whole story - I know there are several old threads that dealt in depth with the WN BFI saga. I do believe it was a PR stunt AND a threat - they aren't mutually exclusive. AS got involved because they knew that BFI would be a more attractive venue for some customers, and they knew that a hole left by WN at SEA would likely push up costs for the remaining carriers.

AS wanted to make sure that WN didn't move, period. Do you really believe AS would have been successful operating 100 flights a day at BFI? Me neither. But they knew it would help kill any deal with BFI, and it did. I doubt they would have done it if they "knew" it wasn't possible.

In regards to WN's move and their complaints about the fees, I'm not going to get into it. I remember some posts suggesting that what was originally agreed to at SEA had changed or increased over time, but I don't know the accuracy or validity of that. If true, though, then good for them in standing up for themselves. If not, then they got what they deserved.

-Dave

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2007-11-17 15:48:51 and read 2736 times.



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 37):

Do you realize that you are repeating what I just said?  sarcastic 

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2007-11-17 23:12:37 and read 2588 times.



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 38):
Do you realize that you are repeating what I just said?

Does the "rolling eyes" icon make you feel better?

I didn't repeat what you were saying, and it doesn't really matter if I did,does it? I simply was restating my views without trying to get drawn into an anti-WN pissing match. I thought I'd heard that they had received some relief on fees at SEA, but I'm not sure so I'm not going to state it as fact. Whether they did or didn't was irrelevant to the conversation anyhow.

You stated Alaska knew that the WN/BFI deal wouldn't happen. I think they knew it was possible, and reacted accordingly. And while you applaud Alaska, I'm more neutral about it. On the one hand, I don't think they had a choice in how they responded. On the other hand, the complete fallacy that AS was going to somehow transfer 100 flights a day from SEA to BFI was such a crock from the get-go, it's hard to clap my hands for them or feel like they were somehow a hero or victim in the whole thing. Again, not exactly what you were stating either.

And my original reply to you was simply questioning your view that Alaska "won" the battle. It all depends on what WN really wanted. It wasn't to relive the whole thing all over again.

Again, what was the big deal????

-Dave

Topic: RE: An Airline At Boeing Field
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2007-11-18 05:20:24 and read 2489 times.



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 39):

With all due respect...I agree with what you are saying. And.... duh! No need to be a broken record.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/