Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SeaPort Airlines To Pendleton, Or (PDT)  
User currently offlineOsprey88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 330 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4643 times:

Apparently with QX ending their service to Pendleton on Dec 1, PDT will then be served by the 9 seat Pilatus PC-12s of SeaPort Airlines. I do believe this is an EAS route, which is probably why SeaPort jumped on it. Hopefully they will be able to make money on this route, even though QX did not...

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....-newsArticle&ID=1217931&highlight=

Kind of a funny, if not slightly vindictive press release from AS regarding their termination of service to PDT  devil 


"Reading departure signs in some big airports reminds me of the places I've been"
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4522 times:

Going from a Dash 8 to a 9 seat aircraft from an airline that no one has even heard about, yep that quite an advancement

User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3128 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4488 times:



Quoting Osprey88 (Thread starter):
Kind of a funny, if not slightly vindictive press release from AS regarding their termination of service to PDT

Slightly? As far as press releases go, this one is out of bounds. Who are they trying to impress? Perhaps Pendleton burned a bridge, but so did QX.

Does anyone know the details of the EAS bids, and why SeaPort had the superior bid?

-Rampart


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4466 times:

I understand the competitiveness of the aviation world, but geez, you'd think AS/QX could have controlled themselves a little in the press release.  Smile

I will say this though: They sure make flying Horizon and the Q400 sound phenomenal. They must have been absolutely shocked at the nerve of Pendleton to turn them away.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offline717-200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 601 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 4447 times:



Quoting Osprey88 (Thread starter):
Kind of a funny, if not slightly vindictive press release from AS regarding their termination of service to PDT

Well, what do you expect from an airline that replaced its rampers at their hub and home base of SEA back in '05?  stirthepot  In any case it is good to see SeaPort Airlines growing in this soon to be even scarier economy.



72S 733 734 735 73G 738 742 752 763 E190 M82 M83
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 4440 times:



Quoting 717-200 (Reply 4):
In any case it is good to see SeaPort Airlines growing in this soon to be even scarier economy.

I checked SeaPort web site; tomorrow 10-31-08 they have sold exactly one seat out of a possible 27 for BFI/PDX and 5 for PDX/BFI...


User currently offline28L28L From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 4423 times:

Has QX completed the move of retiring all of the Dash 8-200s from the fleet now?

User currently offlineHatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4404 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 2):
Does anyone know the details of the EAS bids, and why SeaPort had the superior bid?

They offered 3 R/T to PDX a day at around $1.5 million subsidy. QX wanted to fly these flights through ALW-SEA which would have been cheaper than that. But they also proposed to fly only to PDX from PDT but it would cost a little over $3 million in subsidy. And PDT wanted access to PDX still for intra-state business. That's basically the gist. Seaport was cheaper on the PDX route subsidy-wise.

Quoting Rampart (Reply 2):
Slightly? As far as press releases go, this one is out of bounds. Who are they trying to impress? Perhaps Pendleton burned a bridge, but so did QX.

QX served PDT without subsidy from 1982-2005. They showed a heck of a lot of commitment to a weak route. You should be able to understand a little why they are upset. They are also having to tell 10 people at QX and another 6 or 7 that work for TSA that they have no more jobs anymore.

Quoting 717-200 (Reply 4):
Well, what do you expect from an airline that replaced its rampers at their hub and home base of SEA back in '05?

This has nothing to do with anything related to this article. QX, while maybe going a little out of bounds, is also responding to a lot of jabbing SeaPort constantly makes in the press about how "superior" it's service is since it has no TSA, etc.

Quoting 28L28L (Reply 6):
Has QX completed the move of retiring all of the Dash 8-200s from the fleet now?

Yes, the last scheduled flight was 2 days ago. But they are keeping a couple around as spares through the rest of the winter while they wait for their new owners to take them.


User currently offlineHatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4402 times:

I also wanted to add that a lot of people in the PDT community are upset about this decision was well. The PDT city council voted only 5-3 in favor of SeaPort. A lot of fliers have already said they will now just drive to ALW or PSC and fly out on QX still than take a 9-seat single engine plane to PDX. No mileage accruals for frequent fliers and you have to take a shuttle to the main terminal and re-check in and go through longer security lines at PDX to take a connecting flight. The PC-12 also cannot accept certain disable pax because of it's door and cabin size. Another reason why many in PDT were upset.

User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2996 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4348 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 1):
Going from a Dash 8 to a 9 seat aircraft from an airline that no one has even heard about, yep that quite an advancement

Don't be so quick to judge...I have a friend who recently opted to fly SeaPort on a business trip from PDX to BFI instead of one of the many flights to SEA, and she really enjoyed it--free parking, no security check, and the PC-12 was very comfortable.



Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3128 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4328 times:



Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 7):
You should be able to understand a little why they are upset.

Upset, fine. But I don't think I've seen it so publicly vented via an official press release. That doesn't seem professional to me, and I bet if there was any chance of considering QX again in the future, they successfully PO's the town leaders by publicly challenging and off-hand ridiculing their decision.

-Rampart


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5902 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4299 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I thought QX was simply moving the Pendleton route to SEA instead of PDX.

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4243 times:



Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 7):
They are also having to tell 10 people at QX and another 6 or 7 that work for TSA that they have no more jobs anymore.

I seriously doubt that the job losses had anything to do with the press release. QX is simply pissed that PDT didn't see it their way, particulary when the money will now go to a [marginal] competitor. It's not as if QX hasn't closed a station before.

I see shades of NW and AA in their response. What's next, hourly Q400's from BFI to PDX?

Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 7):
QX, while maybe going a little out of bounds, is also responding to a lot of jabbing SeaPort constantly makes in the press about how "superior" it's service is since it has no TSA, etc.

Constanty in the press? What press? I've seen - maybe - two articles on the start up, but you can't even find anything here on A.net about them. They are virtually unknown, irrelevent, and probably even temporary.

Again, I think QX has grown complacent - and spoiled - in their dominance of the SEA-PDX market specifically, and the PNW marketplace in general. I love them, and have flown, them, but I believe we are seeing glimpses of what's to come.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineHatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4220 times:



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 12):
Constanty in the press? What press? I've seen - maybe - two articles on the start up, but you can't even find anything here on A.net about them. They are virtually unknown, irrelevent, and probably even temporary.

If you go to Seaport's website you can see over 15 articles with many of the angles I mentioned. Since day one Seaport has done everything they can to slam the way QX operates. I probably see it more since I live in Seattle. I'm not justifying QX's response because I too think it went too far. I'm just saying why it probably came about.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 12):
Again, I think QX has grown complacent - and spoiled - in their dominance of the SEA-PDX market specifically

Spoiled maybe. But how can you become complacent? They have done everything they can to make that market attractive including half hourly flights, minimum FF miles, beverage service, and express security lines.

As for PDT, I don't think they were being complacent. With fuel price fluctuations, what they were getting from the subsidy was not enough to make the route profitable. So they removed their contract to re-bid for more money and in this case, could not economically operate only to PDX for what Seaport could do. That's just the different between a PC-12 and a Q400. But I think they were hoping PDT would be up for a routing through SEA because it would have been cheaper and they could still keep QX service. But having a flight to PDX was important to PDT, as it should be.


User currently offlineMtnWest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2458 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

Well reading the release, and as it's an EAS route (if i am not wrong), shouldn't it be the DOT that chooses ultimately, and not the PDT city council? I know DOT takes a cities choice into account, but not like Pendleton's vote is law is it?
Anyway, if QX had kept aircraft that would fit its routes instead of grow out of its bread and butter, they'd still have an ongoing operation in PDT I think. Should've kept the Metroliners for weak cities as PDT. Anyway, I still remember seeing QX's first flight into BOI from PDX via PDT. Hope all works well for the fliers in and out of PDT.



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4188 times:



Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 13):
But how can you become complacent?

Poor choice of word selection on my part. I'll stick with spoiled, though that's probably a little strong. Maybe something in between the two would be most appropriate.

Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 13):
If you go to Seaport's website you can see over 15 articles with many of the angles I mentioned. Since day one Seaport has done everything they can to slam the way QX operates

I clicked on some of the articles randomly. First of all, they aren't necessarily just "SeaPort" articles, and they aren't necessarily slams on Horizon.

1. The first was an article about the decline in air service to small communities. On one side of the page, a small, two paragraph blurb was about SeaPort's service, and was in no way a slam of any kind on Horizon. In fact, the article specifically mentioned Horizon's desire to exit the PDT-PDX market, instead routing people on a one-stop basis to SEA.

2. The second article was about SeaPort, but begins with the Horizon spokesperson (the same one in the current AS/QX press release) defending their actions against SeaPort as "good competition". Their actions? Putting flyers on people's windshields at BFI offering low fares on QX out of SEA. Yes, poor QX getting beaten up. The icing on the cake? The bold print at the top of the article quotes SeaPort as saying 'We will always be more expensive than the big airlines...'. Again, what a slam on QX.

3. The third article I selected didn't even mention Alaska or Horizon. It did, however, mention that they see opportunities in the Seattle/Alaska market. Could this be a clue to QX's strong wording?

4. This was more of a press release follow up, and while it doesn't mention Alaska or Horizon once, it does quote Michael Boyd as saying the concept will not work.

5. The last one I looked at once again never mentions Alaska or Horizon, but it does talk about their decision to do carbon offsets, and it also says that their PC-12's only use 51 gallons of jet fuel between SEA and PDX. That sounds surprisingly low.

Anyhow, Hatbutton, my response above is not necessarily an argument, but rather a rebuttal of sorts against the assertion that SeaPort is out there slamming QX and the way they do business. Other than describing what they do, and how it is different than other scheduled carriers, I did not see anything remotely "slamming" QX or their business plan.

Instead, SeaPort is merely offering an alternative, advertising itself through press releases and interviews, and probably losing a fistful. In the meantime, Horizon is putting flyers on windshields that not only advertise low fares at SEA, but fares that UNDERCUT what SeaPort offered as their lowest fare. They also are putting out press releases that are borderline incredulous at having someone compete with them. I think it is clear that QX is determined not to let SeaPort succeed without a huge fight.

Oh, and that is exactly what the Dino press guy at QX said in one of the articles.

Oh well...

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4174 times:



Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 7):
QX, while maybe going a little out of bounds, is also responding to a lot of jabbing SeaPort constantly makes in the press about how "superior" it's service is since it has no TSA, etc.

Just to follow up on this, perhaps we are splitting hairs over the "jabbing".

To me, jabbing implies a personal attack of sorts, while what SeaPort appears to do is simply tout their own benefits without mudslinging. It would seem to me that they are basically trying to educate the public on the benefits of their service, and they do often point out that they are not meant to be all things to all people.

"Briefcase crowd versus Suitcase crowd". Though I would suspect Horizon is very much wanting to be the airline of the Briefcase crowd.

Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 8):
A lot of fliers have already said they will now just drive to ALW or PSC and fly out on QX still than take a 9-seat single engine plane to PDX.

Which sounds like a great outcome for Horizon. In the end, they are only probably losing the PDT-PDX local crowd. I don't know how many people this was on QX, but I'm sure connections make up a sizable percentage of the folks using QX PDT-PDX. If QX can keep those folks, but at the same time consolidate them onto existing flights, it would seem to be a fine outcome.

Again, I think Horizon is really trying to mark it's territory and keep SeaPort a boutique option rather than develop into something more. I don't blame them, and hope that they can continue to be profitable and prosperous throughout the PNW. They have been a great carrier for our region.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineSupraZachAir From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Feb 2004, 634 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4133 times:



Quoting 717-200 (Reply 4):
Well, what do you expect from an airline that replaced its rampers at their hub and home base of SEA back in '05?

Seeing as its a QX press release, I'm not sure what AS canning its rampers has anything to do with it...


User currently offlineAirnerd From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

I can't imagine SeaPort is going to last much longer. When they fold - and with their routes, tiny planes and zero connecting capabilitites, it's seems pretty inevitable that they will - PDT will realize their mistake. They won't have any service left at all, and QX is not likely to come running back. Of course they might have a shot at getting an EMB from UAX out of Portland...

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3917 times:



Quoting Airnerd (Reply 18):
I can't imagine SeaPort is going to last much longer. When they fold - and with their routes, tiny planes and zero connecting capabilitites, it's seems pretty inevitable that they will - PDT will realize their mistake. They won't have any service left at all, and QX is not likely to come running back. Of course they might have a shot at getting an EMB from UAX out of Portland...

But if the route is subsidized, and their planes sip fuel, and there is indeed a market there for the service, then perhaps they'll actually do fine.

Either way, with Horizon's great service at Pasco and Walla Walla, it doesn't sound like much of a deal either way.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineSuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 3838 times:

I know the press release was a little direct, but remember, when an airline pulls out of a market, it is the airline that gets kicked. In this case, Pendleton has made their bed and Horizon was not selected. So they have indeed made sure everyone knows that this was not Horizon's plan. Secondly, they want the Pendleton passengers to continue to ride with them and running out the differences in service is appropriate (It reminds me of any thousands of campaign ads running right now).

I agree with Airnerd. I think SeaPort is desperate and perhaps not long for this world. Should they go under, Pendleton will likely be a great general aviation field.

I don’t fly to Pendleton, but I am a snob when it comes to 9 passenger planes…I won’t fly on them. That's my 2 cents, but I think Pendleton air service is very very endangered starting Dec 1.


User currently offlineChugach From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1041 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3763 times:



Quoting SuperDash (Reply 20):
I know the press release was a little direct, but remember, when an airline pulls out of a market, it is the airline that gets kicked. In this case, Pendleton has made their bed and Horizon was not selected. So they have indeed made sure everyone knows that this was not Horizon's plan. Secondly, they want the Pendleton passengers to continue to ride with them and running out the differences in service is appropriate (It reminds me of any thousands of campaign ads running right now).

I agree with Airnerd. I think SeaPort is desperate and perhaps not long for this world. Should they go under, Pendleton will likely be a great general aviation field.

I don’t fly to Pendleton, but I am a snob when it comes to 9 passenger planes…I won’t fly on them. That's my 2 cents, but I think Pendleton air service is very very endangered starting Dec 1.

I think that was the exact intent of the press release: QX wanted anybody interested to know that leaving PDT wasn't their first decision and that they tried to make it work. QX has shown a remarkable amount of dedication to the PDT market (I've taken many flights out there on QX that only had 5 or 7 passengers), and I think the city council was extremely short-sighted to just throw QX to the curb because QX had the nerve to try and turn a profit on their Pendleton flights!

PDT is an EAS city so somebody will fly there if SeaPort goes under.

I am from eastern Oregon originally and fly to PDT frequently. For the time being PSC will get my business, but I'm told that QX will be shuffling its ALW schedule shortly and will likely add a Sunday evening ALW-SEA section; if that happens ALW will become my first choice. I'm not going to fly ANC-PDX or ANC-SEA-PDX, then buy a separate PDX-PDT ticket and schlep me and my luggage to the Flightcraft terminal (which, by the way, has no direct connection to the main terminal), when I can do ANC-SEA-PSC/ALW on one ticket. When you're a small town with limited air service, that is the reason that you don't want to remove yourself from the national transportation network, and that's precisely what PDT just did.



GO ROCKETS
User currently offlineUSAIRWAYS321 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1847 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

I say good for Horizon. If the City of Pendleton is going to kick them to the curb in favor of an operation like SeaPort, Horizon should, and deserves to let the Pendleton/Hermiston market know that the City made this decision. Horizon will undoubtedly retain passengers with this press release...the drive to Walla Walla is not far, and certainly worth it for all of the benefits of flying Horizon.

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3739 times:



Quoting Chugach (Reply 21):
I think the city council was extremely short-sighted to just throw QX to the curb because QX had the nerve to try and turn a profit on their Pendleton flights!

QX wanted to change from PDT-PDX to a PDT-ALW-SEA routing, IINM. Is it so incomprehensible to think that PDT simply wants to maintain a direct air link to it's state's largest city? Why does it have to be "throwing Horizon to the curb"?

Quoting Chugach (Reply 21):
PDT is an EAS city so somebody will fly there if SeaPort goes under.

So what's the big deal then? If SeaPort goes under, someone else can come in and provide the service.

Quoting Chugach (Reply 21):
When you're a small town with limited air service, that is the reason that you don't want to remove yourself from the national transportation network, and that's precisely what PDT just did.

I agree that maintaining a connectivity to the network is a desirable end result. But if you look at what is being said, PDT isn't exactly in the middle of nowhere. You guys make it sound like no big deal to drive to Walla Walla or Pasco to get a flight. My first question would be, just how "essential" is this EAS city?

Again, it isn't like someone walked up and slapped QX in the face. Horizon said that they no longer wanted to route PDT passengers through PDX, and the city of PDT decided that they preferred a direct business link to the state's largest city.

How dare them.  Yeah sure

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineHatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3718 times:



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 23):
Again, it isn't like someone walked up and slapped QX in the face. Horizon said that they no longer wanted to route PDT passengers through PDX, and the city of PDT decided that they preferred a direct business link to the state's largest city.

Well they offered 3 routings in the end. 2 through ALW, 1 to SEA and one to PDX and 2 to PDX. PDT had their pick of which route they'd like and unfortunately the 2 r/t to PDX would have to be a subsidy of $3 million or so. So that is the reason why they went with SeaPort, because it was cheaper on the PDX option than QX.


25 USAIRWAYS321 : It's really not. Pendleton to Walla Walla is about an hour and a half, and Pendleton to Pasco is about an hour. For comparison, I live in Pullman, an
26 SuperDash : Not necessarily. Yes, an RFP will be issued. But Horizon will never bid again. The only other bidder was Pacific Wings. They were dangerously close t
27 PlanesNTrains : That may be true. I wonder how much QX's transition to 76 seat aircraft had on the decision made by PDT? I know the operating costs of the Q are exce
28 SuperDash : Agreed. No question the Q400 is overkill for a market that produces 20 passengers a day. But, assuming that Horizon bid their real costs, the subsidy
29 BlatantEcho : not sure what all the fuss is about. Sure it's a little strange to go from a D8 to a PC12, but, other than that, it's still service right? SeaPort pro
30 Wedgetail737 : At some time or another, there had been plans to open a station at or near BFI for the Sounder train, but that never materialized. I am a little surp
31 RwSEA : The maps still show a "deferred" station for both Sounder and Light Rail near the Boeing Access Road and I-5, but who knows when/if it will materiali
32 Wedgetail737 : I would imagine you're right, even though the tracks for the Sounder are directly across the street!
33 PlanesNTrains : Indeed, I think "a stone's throw away" would be the appropriate description. -Dave
34 Seb146 : Reading the link, I seriously doubt the Pendleton city concil turned QX away. I think what may have happened is QX may have asked for money or some ki
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...
FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else! posted Wed Sep 12 2007 14:21:56 by FlyPNS1
Phillipine Airlines To Order A346 Or B773ER posted Sat Oct 21 2006 07:45:26 by Kevin
China Airlines To Buy Either A380 Or 747-8 posted Fri Mar 17 2006 03:31:20 by PanAm_DC10
Dilemma With Two Airlines To HOU, DL Or AA? posted Sun Jun 15 2003 02:23:09 by CcrlR
Alaska Airlines Service To SLC Or ABQ? posted Thu May 29 2003 02:54:08 by United777
Allegro Airlines To DEN - Charter Or Scheduled? posted Thu Dec 20 2001 02:23:57 by BA
National Airlines To Get 737 Or MD-90s? posted Wed Oct 31 2001 19:33:18 by LGB Photos
Frontier Airlines:Stand Alone Or Look To Merge? posted Thu Jan 11 2001 01:45:23 by QantasA330
Oil Is At $71 And Falling, Airlines To Improve $$? posted Thu Oct 16 2008 07:56:09 by Starrion
Turkish Airlines To Fly to GRU (via DKR) In 2009 posted Wed Oct 8 2008 06:33:35 by Hardiwv