Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI  
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13508 posts, RR: 62
Posted (9 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2689 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We knew it was coming...they don't want to do it, but if WN goes to BFI, so will some of AS and QX's operations:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 21, 2005


ALASKA AIRLINES AND HORIZON AIR REQUEST
EQUAL ACCESS TO BOEING FIELD


SEATTLE — Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air notified the King County Council today of their request for equal access to Boeing Field, formally known as King County International Airport, with the intent of operating as many as 100 departures a day from the county-owned facility.

“We share the same concerns as many in our community about expanding commercial passenger service at Boeing Field,” said Bill Ayer, chairman and CEO of Alaska Air Group, the holding company of Alaska and Horizon. “However, if a direct competitor moves their operations to Boeing Field, we’re left with no choice but to request equal access.

“Maintaining competitive operating costs and schedules is necessary to continue offering the superior service and low fares our customers expect from us,” Ayer said. “We also need to protect the 14,000 Alaska and Horizon employees, many of whom are based in the Seattle area, whose livelihoods would be threatened if we allowed ourselves to operate at a competitive disadvantage.”

Alaska and Horizon currently operate 147 and 134 departures from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, respectively, which combined account for about half the airport’s traffic and make Alaska Air Group the Port of Seattle’s largest airline customer. Alaska and Horizon plan to retain operations at Sea-Tac, while moving certain flights to Boeing Field.

“For Horizon, a regrettable potential outcome of splitting our Seattle operations might be a decline in service frequency to some of the Pacific Northwest communities that depend on our Sea-Tac flights for connections to other domestic and international routes,” said Jeff Pinneo, president and CEO of Horizon Air.

The start of Alaska and Horizon operations out of Boeing Field is largely dependent on when facilities at Boeing Field could be built to handle such a dramatic surge in flight activity and the accompanying passenger traffic it would generate. Today the airport lacks sufficient ticket counter, gate, ramp and baggage facilities, as well as parking, access roads and connecting ramps from Interstate-5, to accommodate substantially more airport traffic. How such improvements and additional security and air traffic control would be funded is another unknown, since Alaska believes the county is obligated to accommodate, on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis, its application and those of other airlines to operate from Boeing Field.

“The cost of infrastructure improvements is just one of many reasons we’d rather not pursue commercial service at Boeing Field if we don’t have to,” Ayer said. “Just as important are the environmental issues that will have to be addressed. With the planned capacity improvements at Sea-Tac that this community has funded, which will accommodate increasing regional air traffic well into the next decade, we don’t see a compelling case for the kind of public impacts that an expansion of Boeing Field would create.”



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

YOu know, the WORST think that could happen to AS is that this request is APPROVED - then they'll have two hub operations in the same city. I thought AA was the only airline fool enough to do that, but who knows

User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32599 posts, RR: 72
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
I thought AA was the only airline fool enough to do that, but who knows

AA doesn't do it, but British Airways does.

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
YOu know, the WORST think that could happen to AS is that this request is APPROVED - then they'll have two hub operations in the same city.

There is no reason the request wouldn't be. BFI is a public facility. What they problably won't get is access to Southwest's terminal, so they may have to build their own.



a.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2664 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
YOu know, the WORST think that could happen to AS is that this request is APPROVED - then they'll have two hub operations in the same city. I thought AA was the only airline fool enough to do that, but who knows

And where exactly does AA do that?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2648 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 2):
What they problably won't get is access to Southwest's terminal, so they may have to build their own.

No, the county would have to ensure that they build a terminal complex that ensures capacity for both carriers. Here's how this shakes out:

SWA has proposed a 6 MAP facility, now AS is in the mix with about an additional 7 MAP capacity meaning the county would have to ensure that when it opened to comemrcial service the facility would support 13 MAP. Thats about 30-35 gates. Southwest and Alaska do not, cannot and are not permitted to construct terminals. The County now has to go through a planning process that includes environmental impact reports and everything else that goes along with a new airport. They then issue bonds for the construction based on a 13 MAP facility. Investors then sit back and say.. Wait a minute, SEA has the capacity, this is a non-starter - I'm not buying the bonds. End of game, end of story. No move by anyone to BFI.


User currently offlineUNDpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

BFI was where I learned to fly-it's a great (even charming) airport. Since I am active local Seattle politics, this is going to become a very 'hot' button issue.

User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6754 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
No, the county would have to ensure that they build a terminal complex that ensures capacity for both carriers. Here's how this shakes out:

Are you telling me that Kings County would force WN to build a 20 gate terminal just so Alaska can use 12 of the gates to add 100 flights without ponying up some money?

OMG.. I'm so through with this.



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):

And where exactly does AA do that?

They don't....yet. But what are they threatening to do should the Wright Amendment fall? Why open up operations at DAL of course.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 7):
They don't....yet. But what are they threatening to do should the Wright Amendment fall? Why open up operations at DAL of course.

That doesn't mean DAL will also be a hub. Think of AA's ORD hub and their satellite operations at MDW. UA does the same thing with ORD/MDW.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 8):

That doesn't mean DAL will also be a hub. Think of AA's ORD hub and their satellite operations at MDW. UA does the same thing with ORD/MDW.

Ah yes...but they don't talk about their ORD/MDW operations...the talk over the WA is that they would move a large number of flights over to DAL. DFW plays up this "loss of service" as well. But there are nine million other threads about that - we now return you to the Seattle discussion.


User currently offlineN77014 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Why would there have to be voter approval on bonds for a facility that is privately owned?

If anything, all WN should have to pay is the developement and construction costs of their own terminal, with landing fee money contributing to the upkeep.

Whie I agree that the scope of WN's plans is large and a great challenge to AS, it is not anything that would put AS out of business.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13508 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
The County now has to go through a planning process that includes environmental impact reports and everything else that goes along with a new airport. They then issue bonds for the construction based on a 13 MAP facility. Investors then sit back and say.. Wait a minute, SEA has the capacity, this is a non-starter - I'm not buying the bonds. End of game, end of story. No move by anyone to BFI.

Which, if the above is accurate, was Alaska and Horizon's sole reason for requesting access to BFI at all - to make it so WN can't move there in the first place.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2587 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
Are you telling me that Kings County would force WN to build a 20 gate terminal just so Alaska can use 12 of the gates to add 100 flights without ponying up some money?

I'm beginning to think you have a reading and comprehension problem. King County builds it, not Southwest. Get that through your skull. If you have a learning disability, please advise. I'll apologize.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2571 times:

Quoting N77014 (Reply 10):
Why would there have to be voter approval on bonds for a facility that is privately owned?

1. Airport bonds are not tied to city/county/state debt, they are airport debt.

2. Commercial Passenger Service Airports cannot be privately owned by one airline. They must provide non-discriminatory access to all carriers.

Way to go Southwest... Confuse the hell out of the general public by claiming you'll build your own terminal.

You see how you all got suckered into that??? And you're aviation enthusiasts. Imagine the casual observer or neighborhood lemming.


User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6754 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
I'm beginning to think you have a reading and comprehension problem. King County builds it, not Southwest. Get that through your skull. If you have a learning disability, please advise. I'll apologize.

Southwest BFI

This is the last place I'm going to post it for you. now if you would please read closely..

Southwest will use its own financial resources for the approximately $130 million improvement of King County International Airport (KCIA). Southwest Airlines proposes to build an eight-gate commercial airport facility, which will include parking garage, passenger concessions, rental car provisions, special accommodations for cruise traffic and buses, and the necessary facilities for Southwest's flight operations, including gates, office space, baggage claim, and baggage screening.

Now where, in that entire excert, do you see that Kings County is footing the bill?

And if you must continue to try to bad mouth me or call me names, then it is going to become very personal.



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 14):
Southwest will use its own financial resources for the approximately $130 million improvement of King County International Airport (KCIA). Southwest Airlines proposes to build an eight-gate commercial airport facility, which will include parking garage, passenger concessions, rental car provisions, special accommodations for cruise traffic and buses, and the necessary facilities for Southwest's flight operations, including gates, office space, baggage claim, and baggage screening.

Yeah. I read it...

Now you read this:


http://www.faa.gov/arp/ACs/5190-5a1.pdf


User currently offlineASAFA From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 168 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

Quoting N77014 (Reply 10):
Why would there have to be voter approval on bonds for a facility that is privately owned?

It isn't privately owned. It belongs to King County

Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air notified the King County Council today of their request for equal access to Boeing Field, formally known as King County International Airport, with the intent of operating as many as 100 departures a day from the county-owned facility.

Boeing7E7 is right. It is very doubtful this would ever get approval. The voters would have to bear much of the cost, not just terminals, but freeway and road improvements, parking, security, etc. AS is calling WN's bluff in hopes that the whole thing goes down. A smart move if you ask me.



Prepare for Takeoff
User currently offlineLegendDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Quoting N77014 (Reply 10):
Whie I agree that the scope of WN's plans is large and a great challenge to AS, it is not anything that would put AS out of business.

Maybe not out of business but diffinitly in a great disadvantage. BFI is a much better location for O&D traffic into the city of Seattle and will be cheaper to operate in. Southwest's ability to expand service will be enhanced as they currently utilize 5 gates at sea-tac and will be able to go up to 7-8 in a newly remodeled BFI, plus... It is afterall WN, they scare everyone...

Another, perhaps minor difference, but a difference non the less, BFI is just over 400 ft lower than SEA (21' vs. 433') which means that when the cloud cover drops, as it does so often, BFI will be impacted much later than SEA would. In fact, BFI as been used numerous times as a diversion airport in fog events.


User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6754 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
Now you read this:


http://www.faa.gov/arp/ACs/5190-5a1.pdf

I read it and I did not see where WN was violating anything. Could you point me to the section that you would like me to focus on, if you don't mind?

Quoting ASAFA (Reply 16):
The voters would have to bear much of the cost, not just terminals, but freeway and road improvements, parking, security, etc.

To be sure not. WN already stated they would pay for the terminals, parking, security, and miscellanous. Kings County already stated they would not pay for such things. They may, however, go to the State and request funding for the road improvements if they are needed. But if it is already a diversion airport with a lot of GA activitiy, I don't think much road improvement would be necessary.

I'm just not getting the problem with why this is such a problem to anyone. WN is not violating any rules, they are not asking Kings County to pay for it.. they are just wanting to move their operations to somewhere they feel they can do their business the way they want to.



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineLN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1908 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2480 times:

Quote:

I don't think much road improvement would be necessary.

You obviously don't know the area so why are you so occupied by this?



- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6707 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
Now you read this:

http://www.faa.gov/arp/ACs/5190-5a1.pdf

The sections which appear to be relevant to Southwest's proposal are the following:

Quote:
An exclusive rights violation occurs when the airport
sponsor excludes others, either intentionally or
unintentionally, from participating in an on-airport
aeronautical activity. The effect of a prohibited
exclusive rights agreement can be manifested by an
express agreement, unreasonable minimum standards,
or by any other means. Significant to an
understanding of the exclusive rights policy is the
recognition that it is the impact of the activity, and
not the sponsor’s intent to create such an impact,
that constitutes an exclusive rights violation.

1-3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL
RULE. The following paragraph addresses those
situations where an arrangement tantamount to an
exclusive rights situation exists but does not violate
agency policy due to the surrounding circumstances
that make such an arrangement necessary.

a. Aeronautical Activities Conducted by
the Airport Sponsor (Proprietary Exclusive
Right). The owner of a public-use airport (public
or private owner) may elect to provide any or all of
the aeronautical activities needed by the public at
the airport. As a practical matter, most public
agencies recognize that these activities are best
provided by profit-motivated private enterprise.

The exceptions are usually those instances in which
a municipality or other public agency elects to provide
fuel service or aircraft parking. If it does so,
whether on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis, it
may not refuse to permit any person, firm, or corporation
operating aircraft from fueling its own
aircraft.

b. Single Activity. The fact that a single
business or enterprise is conducting most or all of
the on-airport aeronautical activities is not, in itself,
evidence of an exclusive rights violation. The absence
of competition alone is not a violation of the
exclusive rights policy. When an exclusive rights
violation is alleged, whether the opportunity to engage
in an on-airport aeronautical activity was
available to everyone who met the relevant and
reasonable minimum standards determines whether
enforcement action will be necessary. The fact that
only one party pursued the opportunity to do so
would not subject the airport sponsor to an exclusive
rights violation.

...

c. Space Limitation. A single enterprise
may expand as needed, even if its growth ultimately
results in the complete occupancy of all
space available. However, an exclusive rights violation
occurs when an airport sponsor unreasonably
excludes a qualified applicant from engaging in an
on-airport aeronautical activity without just cause.
An exclusive rights violation can be effected
through the use of leases where, for example, all
the available airport land or facilities suitable for
aeronautical activities are leased to a single user. A
sponsor’s refusal to permit a single FBO to expand
based on the sponsor’s desire to open the airport to
competition is not violative of the exclusive rights
prohibition. Additionally, a sponsor can exclude an
FBO from responding to a request for proposals,
based on the sponsor’s desire to create competition
at the airport. A lease that confers an exclusive
rights agreement will be construed as having the
intent to do so and, therefore, be in violation of
FAA policy.

Airport sponsors may be better served by requiring
that leases to a single user be limited to the amount
of land the user can demonstrate is actually needed
and can be put to immediate use. In the event that
additional space is required later, the incumbent
should be required to compete along with all other
qualified bidders for the available land. The grant
of options or preferences on future sites to a single
incumbent may be construed as intent to grant an
exclusive right.

Pay careful attention to Southwest's proposal. Southwest proposes only to rent LAND from the county, not facilities, and to pay landing fees at the airport in accordance with the airport's fee schedule. Note the bold portion of Section 1-3(a) above -- the airport owner may (not must) provide any or all aeronautical activities to the public at the airport. Southwest's proposal does not contemplate accepting any sort of services from the county aside from airfield maintenance, which is already provided by the county. They even propose to build and operate their own fueling operation.

It is also clear from Section 1-3(c) that Southwest's lease of airport land only contravenes FAA policy if Southwest is allowed to lease the only available land at the airport. It is clear from news reports that there is significant available land on the airport property for others to construct their own facilities, if they so choose.

If Southwest is willing to foot the bill to construct its own terminal, parking facilities, etc., it is difficult to argue that requiring operators to build their own facilities is an unreasonable minimum standard. Nothing in FAA regulations requires the operator to build a terminal simply because an airline requests it. More simply put, Southwest is requesting little more than a lease of land at BFI. If Alaska or any other airline wants to do the same at BFI, they ought to be allowed to do so until the land runs out.

[Edited 2005-07-22 00:21:28]

User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2415 times:

If King County wants to create the funding for a new terminal at BFI, then construct and manage it themselves, noting the AC 5190 linked above, they would have to allow equal access to it.

However, if WN requested to lease their own BFI property, with the intent to pay for, construct, and operate their own (WN) terminal, that would be allowable. King County could not force WN into allowing additional carriers into a WN-owned and operated terminal (of course, AS or any other carrier could lease their own land and build their own terminal), but neither could they grant WN exclusive rights at BFI.

Frankly, WN's announcement was a masterstroke. AS made the only competitive response that they could make, and it was one they basically were forced into making. WN's announcement:
1) puts SEA on notice that their landing fees, rates and charges, etc are too high. (My personal opinion is that this is WN's ultimate goal: to lower rates and charges at SEA).
2) puts AS on the defensive ("we'll have to split our operations between SEA and BFI, but we'll do it") and gives them a plethera of operating issues.

This could all be just smoke and mirrors, but it should be fun to see how it shakes out. And it's interesting to see the various ways that WN likes to shake the industry up.

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineLono From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1335 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 21):
Frankly, WN's announcement was a masterstroke. AS made the only competitive response that they could make, and it was one they basically were forced into making. WN's announcement:
1) puts SEA on notice that their landing fees, rates and charges, etc are too high. (My personal opinion is that this is WN's ultimate goal: to lower rates and charges at SEA).
2) puts AS on the defensive ("we'll have to split our operations between SEA and BFI, but we'll do it") and gives them a plethera of operating issues.

This could all be just smoke and mirrors, but it should be fun to see how it shakes out. And it's interesting to see the various ways that WN likes to shake the industry up.

Very well said..... It also puts AS on the defensive knowing that SW is not only willing to stay.... but to build a major hub in their backyard... It is about time someone took AS on in SEA.... It will be very enjoyable watching them fight for SEA....



Wally Bird Ruled the Skys!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 20):
Pay careful attention to Southwest's proposal. Southwest proposes only to rent LAND from the county, not facilities, and to pay landing fees at the airport in accordance with the airport's fee schedule. Note the bold portion of Section 1-3(a) above -- the airport owner may (not must) provide any or all aeronautical activities to the public at the airport. Southwest's proposal does not contemplate accepting any sort of services from the county aside from airfield maintenance, which is already provided by the county. They even propose to build and operate their own fueling operation.



Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 21):
However, if WN requested to lease their own BFI property, with the intent to pay for, construct, and operate their own (WN) terminal, that would be allowable. King County could not force WN into allowing additional carriers into a WN-owned and operated terminal (of course, AS or any other carrier could lease their own land and build their own terminal), but neither could they grant WN exclusive rights at BFI.

BFI already receives Federal Funding, so the rules of equal access would apply to any terminal construction on the field.


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9293 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 11):
Which, if the above is accurate, was Alaska and Horizon's sole reason for requesting access to BFI at all - to make it so WN can't move there in the first place.

ding!



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
25 Boeing7E7 : Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding As soon as the second carrier proposed a move, it went from a proposed private project to a proposed public project. This is
26 STLGph : Boeing7E7- when is Southwest going to realize that they can't get handicapped parking privileges at every airport they want to fly to?
27 Boeing7E7 : As soon as a smart enough judge see's they're faking it and takes away their right to the special blue card.
28 ScottB : Prove this. Cite the FAA regulation which states that the airport operator must provide terminal facilities comparable to what another tenant owns an
29 Tom in NO : You're talking apples and oranges. Don't confuse the separate issue of equal access (which no one here is denying) with the issue that WN could build
30 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : Read away.... http://www.faa.gov/arp/publications/fedreg.cfm?ARPnav=fedreg#acip Tom... It became a public project as soon as AS proposed moving as we
31 Aaway : An interesting exchange, which leads to a couple of questions regarding Alaska's press release: ALASKA AIRLINES AND HORIZON AIR REQUEST EQUAL ACCESS
32 ScottB : Nope. You claimed the FAA won't allow airlines to own and operate their own facilities; don't just give a link to about 20 documents regarding rules
33 Post contains images GentFromAlaska : I think you used SW to mean Southwest. The SW airline code actually is assigned to Air Namibia.
34 Tom in NO : You might want to retract this one. According to your own linked FAA AC 5190: "With few exceptions, an airport sponsor is prohibited from granting an
35 777XI : Someone brought up the question of where the FAA stated they would no longer allow airlines to operate their own terminals...but what about Legend's t
36 PlanesNTrains : I believe B7E7 would say that it was grandfathered in, as it was in progress when the rules changed. That's my guess. AS proposed adding 100 flights
37 Lono : Thanks for that... I meant WN.... one too many...!!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AS/QX To Shift Flights To BFI If Neccessary... posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:53 by SupraZachAir
AA Wants To Follow WN & AS To BFI! posted Tue Oct 4 2005 09:00:33 by NWDC10
AS Response To WN's Proposed Move To BFI posted Tue Oct 4 2005 03:51:19 by HikesWithEyes
CDG Withdraws Access To 70 Muslim Staff posted Thu Nov 2 2006 08:55:31 by OzGlobal
UPS MD11 Due In To BFI 3:30 posted Tue Sep 26 2006 21:41:44 by Clickhappy
AS/QX In California posted Sat Jun 17 2006 20:38:14 by NWDC10
Improved Access To Toronto City Centre Airport posted Sun Feb 5 2006 23:41:57 by AirCanada014
Wash. Redskins Ride In Style To BFI posted Fri Jan 13 2006 02:43:40 by Airfinair
Alliance Access To Frequent Flyer Info posted Wed Nov 9 2005 17:00:21 by Abrelosojos
AZ 767/777 On Opproach To BFI On 10/17? posted Tue Oct 18 2005 07:42:16 by Lemurs