QXcargoman From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 9 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
I think PDX is very under served compared to other cities the same size and some that are smaller. I think AS should do some long haul routes to the east coast. I also think that there could be more international flights.
Atcboy73 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1498 times:
Ya know I was just thinking about this the other day when I noticed that American was down to two flights a day to STL( I think, do i have the right info?).
One could see AS going once a day to BOS, EWR, PHL, DCA(or more like IAD) and MCO and MIA. And there is almost no non-stop service to the state of Alaska. How about Horizon to Edmonton and Calgary.
Then there is SWA. I know they have one-stops to LAX and MDW but couldn't they support non-stop service and also how about more service to AS / KLAS), USA - Nevada">LAS and PHX. I mean come on. I think MCI has more service to these two airports than PDX. And if I understand right the PDX catchment area is about 500,000 larger than MCI's. How about service to BWI?
If UAL comes through, Id like to see some type of service, probably RJ to BUR,SNA,ONT and SAN.
Im an air traffic controller that has transfer paper work in for PDX and would love to see a lot more new service, like those new Air Tran Airbuses to ATL and ATA to MDW. Jet blue to JFK and LGB (that LGB might be a long shot) and would someone please pick up a passenger flight to Asia, PLEASE. Id love to work all that stuff.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
PDX does sit in the shadow of SEA, and therefore is a bit underserved with most carriers concentrating far more service at "nearby" SEA. As metioned, DL tried creating PDX into its pacific gateway and a "mini-hub", they did not succeed - their lack of success was probably not due to PDX (DL has also pulled out of LAX-NRT and LAX-HKG) but due to the fact that DL did not have enough presence in the transpacific market and was going against very established US rivals such as UA and NW.
The good news is MX and LH have started international service to PDX and AS continues to grow in a moderate, planned style. PDX will benefit, and when the economy picks up, and the Iraq, Sars and after affect of 9/11 are all behind us, look for PDX to grow quickly with new servie to hubs, plus point to point service.
AS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5818 posts, RR: 23 Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1423 times:
QXCargo, I think you will see an increase of QX CR7's trying route to test the water ( within their range ) then see AS come in if it does well. Example is Denver, on June 8th goes from 2 CR7 to 2 737-400. Yes, I have heard Newark from PDX once we have the more 73G in the fleet, possibly! We do codeshare with CO, so anything goes. Let you know if I hear any confirmation.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
Doug_or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3158 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
I'm not entirely sure I agree. The total number of destination served from PDX is quite good for a city of its size. We have direct service to almost all of the major US hubs (except US') and thanks to QX and AS, most any western city. Now with Mexicana and Lufthansa offering service to nations other than our friendly northern neighbor, we can once agian really refer to our selves as international. As far as SEA goes, I really don't think we exist in their shadow- I've only talked to once person who drove to SEA to catch a flight, and that was because there was $200, they were really cheap, and they also didn't know how far apart the cities were (they were visting portland.)
That being said, I itnhk AS would do well to spread some of their transcon loving to their "other" city. It seems there would be much less competition than in SEA.
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
While most folks in PDX wouldn't drive to SEA to catch a flight, a fair number of folks who live in what would traditionally be thought of as the northern half of the PDX catchment area would (and do). Mainly because of the greater WN presence in SEA, and AS's response to it, there's a larger selection of low cost destinations, and more flights to those destinations.
On the flip side though, PDX has come a long way. As recently as ten years ago, most of the transcons out of Portland were served as a tag on to SEA. Now those are served as nonstops out of PDX.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
Seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9801 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1251 times:
With the companies that have pulled out of the "Silicon Forest" lately, the need for more service has gone down especially to Asia.
Also, I know someone who is going to Europe next year and booked a cheap flight on BA from SEA. He looked at LH from PDX and still the flight out of SEA is cheaper.
Many of the people I know and have talked to have family in this area (so they drive) or on the West Coast. Where does PDX need to serve? I think the Port of Portland should look at expanding Hillsboro (HIO) and making that the major cargo center for the Pacific Northwest.
KAL_LM From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1107 times:
PDX Underserved? Not really considering the size of the market. Regardless of what the Port of Portland thinks, previous experiments have fizzled. Delta's mini-hub is an example. Even during the boom of the Silicon Forest the non-stops to Asia (MNL, SEL, FUK, NGO, NRT) all fizzled out. Unfortunately, we just have to deal with being a second-tier market and have to deal with stops if we want to go trans-con. Sad, but true. Sure, LH started, and MX will soon, but how long will they last? Sure there will be bright spots like AS/QX, but overall we're not huge and really won't be...we're really not that big, comparatively.
No offense, but both MMV and HIO would be horrible for cargo. For 1 reason: accessibility. PDX has easy I-205 and pretty easy I-5 access. For HIO you have to run Hwy. 26 which even on good days sucks and MMV has to run Hwy. 99 which is the same. We throughput a lot of transit freight here, because of the close proximity to the rest of the NW. At least 1/3 of the KE in-bound is for SEA with some additional going various spots in Canada (YVR, YEG, YYC, YEA), so the location works. Transit times from SEA would increase about 45min - 1hr. minimum. It doesn't sound like a lot, but considering we plan our outbound trucks to drop at D-6, 1 hour makes a large difference. And besides, the infrastructure needed at both spots to make them work is pretty large, much more than it would be worth.
is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just a train?
Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2863 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1081 times:
previous experiments have fizzled. Delta's mini-hub is an example. Even during the boom of the Silicon Forest the non-stops to Asia (MNL, SEL, FUK, NGO, NRT) all fizzled out.
I don't think that DL's Pacific services fizzled due to PDX's market... rather, they fizzled because DL didn't provide feed for them at all. Nonstops to all of those cities probably couldn't exist even in SEA based on pure O&D. DL could have made a run in PDX but they were getting their clocks cleaned by UA and NW across the Pacific, and they had other fish to fry, hence other hubs to worry about. Besides, DL's western strategy is weak in any regard, and they know it.
Kwbl From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 438 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1011 times:
PDX is underserved by number of destinations but probably not by # of seats. They should be able to fill up a single flight to JFK, BOS, PHL, MCO etc but because they have so much service to midwest hubs, the airlines rather send them through there. I agree with Flashmeister on Delta's "expirement". At one time, the PDX-NRT was the 3rd most profitable route in the system (Pre ATL-NRT). Even so, with the economic downturn in Asia, loads were still in the 75% range. The customs problem at PDX was also a problem (that has now been addressed). BTW, I just flew the PDX-FRA and it is awesome (And the loads were pretty good, I would guess 85% on the way there and 70% on the way back).
Atcboy73 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1007 times:
Kwbl---I totally agree about you assumption of the coast to coast service from PDX. There could be more.
I think this is where PDX is lucky that is has a based carrier in Alaska and Horizon, thinking that if the based carrier were UAL for example they would lean more toward the connections at hub thing.
When the economy picks up I bet we see more service to east coast cities for Alaska and SWA.
SWA really surprises me. 10 years ago, who would of ever thought they would fly to ABQ and MCI from PDX. I bet they have BNA and TPA as well as BWI on their plans from Portland. And could it be safe to say that they may focus on PDX more than SEA because of congestion at SEA. When the environment improves I bet delays become a problem at SEA again.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6049 posts, RR: 25 Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1009 times:
DL didn't provide feed to PDX because there weren't many markets to feed it with. People in SFO,SEA,LAX certainly had no interest in connecting through PDX to get to NRT. People in the Central/Eastern US could more easily connect using ORD,DTW,ATL,DFW,JFK, then fly to PDX for connections. Even if DL had used a regional carrier, there just aren't enough midsized markets in the Pacific Northwest to feed a PDX.
In order to have a successful Asian gateway, you need a large O+D population, something PDX lacks in comparison with other western cities. As for being undeserved, PDX really isn't. PDX has service by 3 lowfare carriers (HP,WN,F9) and service from all other majors except US and ATA. What more do you expect? No, PDX doesn't have the service levels of similar sized markets like CLT or CVG, but that's mainly because of poor geography. Trust me, if CLT/CVG were not hubs for major carriers their service patterns would be very similar to PDX.
Cschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1029 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 879 times:
Customs/immigration problems were an issue for the DL Asian flights, but also high lease rates for airport space. Delta recently closed its Crown Room due to high rates, although traffic probably contributed, too. Interestingly, there's more international cargo traffic than passenger. Cargolux, Air China and Korean, plus the usual Evergreen, UPS, FedEx, etc.
Atcboy73 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 866 times:
I guess its all in your point of view.
If UAL can make it out of the mess its in right now and comes up with a new strategy for RJs I hope it involves a little PDX service.
I heard at one time that UAL mainline was going to focas on LAX, SFO, DEN, ORD, IAD and that they were going to use RJs for smaller point to point service on the west coast. These RJs would run routes like PDX and SEA to BUR, ONT, SNA and SAN. This would be an effort to take people away from SWA and Alaska