What is the future of Sea-Tac Airport in terms of new services and overcrowding and ways to fix it? For new services, Volaris started service here a week ago, I don't know how well that's going. I'm becoming increasingly doubtful that XiamenAir flights will work out. Can someone tell me the PPDEW (I think that's the abbreviation) on that route? I believe that VS will do great on the LHR route, I am very confident that that route will stick. Are there any chances of the EK A380 coming to SEA? I know that DL is done adding international at SEA until the new FIS is built, but when that's added, any guesses on what they'll add? My guesses: Good chance of happening: MNL: Because there's a large Filipino population in Western Washington due to the Navy base. TPE: BR has flown that route for 20+ years and rumor has it that it's doing well so there might be room for DL in there. FCO: Possible medium-sized Italian population and Alitalia on the other end for feed. Somewhat unlikely to happen: DEL: Air India wanted to serve the route when their 777-200LR's came and IIRC Northwest wanted to serve SEA-AMS-DEL or BLR and same with DTW, but both never happened. FRA: No feed from FRA, and Condor and Lufthansa on the route already, but with enough West Coast feed, it might work. BKK: If they're able to compete with EK and get enough West Coast feed, maybe. Forgive me if these sound too far-fetched, I just like seeing my home city grow! Now on to overcrowding and solutions to that that I think can work: I know that the NorthStar project is happening, but that only helps AS since they are the sole tenant of that terminal. C Concourse is IIRC the only other concourse that can take Q400 aircraft, so AS can't move out of that terminal. They could move some or all of their operation in D to N after NorthStar is done though since the gates there aren't very good. Too crowded. Then DL could move some domestic mainline ops out of S to D to give more room for int'l flights. If the merger between AS and VX is approved, then VX could move to N with AS, freeing up a gate in B, which either WN or Delta Connection could use. FYI, some DL Connection flights depart out of B, some non int'l mainline flights depart out of A, and the rest of the flights depart out of S. HA could move into A or N, freeing up 2 gates in the morning. I know that N has widebody gates since UA used to have their int'l flights out of there. Sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling, I just am trying to get my thoughts out. Here's a summary of the changes: AS: Moves most or all of their ops out of D into N once NorthStar finishes. Takes VX (depending on merger approval) into N with them. DL: Can take VX's gate in B for Connection ops. Takes some gates for mainline non int'l ops in D left by AS. Takes the two HA gates in S. WN: Maybe gets additional gate in B. HA: Moves into N with AS and VX. Again, sorry is this sounds like a confusing jumble of thoughts, but this is just my perspective on what could happen and I am curious what you think. Do you have any ideas on what could be added or any solutions to overcrowding?
Thanks,
Ian

i guess delta is the only one that can significantly can change the international flight status at SEA. although i think China Southern can add CAN-SEA route. theres a slight chance it would happen but maybe there will be a SYD-SEA.

I'm shocked both CX and JL haven't started service to SEA. SEA seems to be a hole in both of those airlines networks.

787fan8 wrote:

I'm shocked both CX and JL haven't started service to SEA. SEA seems to be a hole in both of those airlines networks.

With NH and DL both flying SEA/NRT, I don't think there's enough additional traffic for JL to start. They did fly here years ago, IIRC the flight was ATL/SEA/NRT and once they got the 744, they could do ATL/NRT non-stop and left SEA for good.
I am surprised Finnair hasn't come back and was equally surprised when SAS left.
As for EK coming in with the the A380 instead of the double daily 777's, not in the foreseeable future, much to my dismay. Port of Seattle just plain isn't going to spend the necessary $$ to make it feasible. Yes, it could park remotely and the pax could be bussed to FIS, but really, where would they park the beast? Way down by the FX cargo hardstand? Plus they'd have to pretty much stop all ground traffic while the whale taxied in - not gonna happen. As a fan of four-holers, it breaks my heart.

When AS took over the N gates they modified the gates, so no more widebody gates and there are some Q400 gates there now as well.

As far as expansion, http://www.portseattle.org/Business/Con ... 031416.pdf pages 8-13 will shed some light, nothing have been decided yet as to which route to take.

CX and JL are both serving YVR and happily so. No reason for them to shoot themselves in the foot, especially considering there's no OW partner in SEA.
Even DL now with a new CEO might scale down operations at SEA without losing face, because let's admit it, the SEA Asia hub has been a failure for DL and has even lost ground to AA in LAX which is a natural hub to Asia. SEA has never been despite its good geography. The traffic is just not there.

VCEflyboy wrote:

CX and JL are both serving YVR and happily so. No reason for them to shoot themselves in the foot, especially considering there's no OW partner in SEA.
.

I don't think that is a valid argument. firstly, CX & JL are both partners with Alaska which easily makes up for no OW parter. And for YVR- look at LH, BA, KE & BR who all serve both cities. I don't think serving both is shooting yourself in the foot. For CX, I think it has more to do with aircraft availability, and for JL, the partnership with AS is new. Give it some time.

VCEflyboy wrote:

CX and JL are both serving YVR and happily so. No reason for them to shoot themselves in the foot, especially considering there's no OW partner in SEA.
Even DL now with a new CEO might scale down operations at SEA without losing face, because let's admit it, the SEA Asia hub has been a failure for DL and has even lost ground to AA in LAX which is a natural hub to Asia. SEA has never been despite its good geography. The traffic is just not there.

I respectfully disagree with you on your statement about the SEA hub being a failure. While SEA is not LAX or SFO and is unlikely to be able to support small destinations like Changsha or Chengdu, the hub is doing well at its size. Load factors are high on domestic flights, and the European and Asian flights were successful from the beginning. Plus, Delta is ramping up sponsorship and helping the community of Seattle, with the slogan "You can't stop Seattle." While Seattle will never be an LAX or an ORD or MIA, it's doing very well at its current size.

I was in SEA back in May transferring to ANC and I was impressed with how busy SEA was and the variety of carriers that serve the airport.

717atOGG wrote:

VCEflyboy wrote:

. Plus, Delta is ramping up sponsorship and helping the community of Seattle, with the slogan "You can't stop Seattle."

You mean their slogan "You can't stop us, Alaska' ? It's so transparent. I loved this story about how Delta is a failure in SEA because they're trying too hard and it's so obvious to Seattleites.

Here's What Delta Doesn't Get about the Pacific Northwest: http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... west-fail/

VCEflyboy wrote:

Even DL now with a new CEO might scale down operations at SEA without losing face, because let's admit it, the SEA Asia hub has been a failure for DL and has even lost ground to AA in LAX which is a natural hub to Asia. SEA has never been despite its good geography. The traffic is just not there.

None of the above has an ounce of fact to it. Pure drivel.

717atOGG wrote:

VCEflyboy wrote:

CX and JL are both serving YVR and happily so. No reason for them to shoot themselves in the foot, especially considering there's no OW partner in SEA.
Even DL now with a new CEO might scale down operations at SEA without losing face, because let's admit it, the SEA Asia hub has been a failure for DL and has even lost ground to AA in LAX which is a natural hub to Asia. SEA has never been despite its good geography. The traffic is just not there.

I respectfully disagree with you on your statement about the SEA hub being a failure. While SEA is not LAX or SFO and is unlikely to be able to support small destinations like Changsha or Chengdu, the hub is doing well at its size. Load factors are high on domestic flights, and the European and Asian flights were successful from the beginning. Plus, Delta is ramping up sponsorship and helping the community of Seattle, with the slogan "You can't stop Seattle." While Seattle will never be an LAX or an ORD or MIA, it's doing very well at its current size.

The entry of Xiamen Airlines coming this Fall will show whether or not smaller cities to SEA can be viable. I think it's not if, but when CX will enter the SEA-HKG market.

The future of SEA is less overall service. It's such a highly over-served bloodbath that it can't continue to stay this way. One day the DL/AS war has to end. Somebody will have to give in. Until that happens though, the passengers are the real winners in SEA. They're getting spoiled.

LAX772LR wrote:

None of the above has an ounce of fact to it. Pure drivel.

Well, the inverse argument, that the SEA hub is a success, doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. In fact, the only solid evidence we have is that the SEA hub is well below average performer for DL.

MSPNWA wrote:

Well, the inverse argument, that the SEA hub is a success, doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it.

You reach a conclusion, despite having NO IDEA what their per route financial targets, achievements, planned accepted-variance, nor projected scale, actually ARE for that hub........

.....yet, in the same post: you speak of not having "a shred of evidence."

Do you not see the irony in this situation?

dennisho115 wrote:

When AS took over the N gates they modified the gates, so no more widebody gates and there are some Q400 gates there now as well.

As far as expansion, http://www.portseattle.org/Business/Con ... 031416.pdf pages 8-13 will shed some light, nothing have been decided yet as to which route to take.

Ok, so HA won't move to N. They'd probably stay in S. They used to be in B until 2011 or 2012, but I doubt they could move back since DL Connection and WN have gotten larger there since HA left.

Xiamen Air is not driven by market forces.. The local government flushes it with money to start routes that wouldn't be sustainable in a million years just because they can.

There are lots of chinese in tech industry in Seattle. I won't rule out xiamen so soon

ER757 wrote:

With NH and DL both flying SEA/NRT, I don't think there's enough additional traffic for JL to start.

I'm not so sure. Despite burgeoning trade links between the U.S. and Asia and the very strong economy in the Seattle/Tacoma region, SEA today has far less capacity than it has historically supported. Now of course part of that is just that now with Delta's hub plus additional capacity from non-U.S. carriers, there is clearly less need to connect over NRT than in the past. But even with that, I think SEA probably could support a third daily flight to TYO, and a JAL 787 - to provide a oneworld presence on the route and given the advent of the JAL-Alaska relationship - seems logical. I suspect there is, indeed, enough traffic.

VCEflyboy wrote:

CX and JL are both serving YVR and happily so. No reason for them to shoot themselves in the foot, especially considering there's no OW partner in SEA.

First, YVR and SEA aren't the same market, so I'm not sure why serving both would constitute "shooting [one's self] in the foot." Second, while it's true that there is no oneworld partner hub in SEA, AA obviously does have thousands of seats every day in and out of the market, and beyond that, JAL now has an extensive codesharing relationship with SEA's dominant airline (Alaska) that would undoubtedly become even more extensive if JAL were to fly to Alaska's largest hub. Indeed, as Alaska continues to extricate itself from the Delta relationship over time, I could see the logic of a JAL 787 to SEA - and PDX - making more and more sense. JAL seems like a natural partner for Alaska - thus the reason why the codesharing announcement was met with so little surprise - because both provide the other with something that neither can develop organically.

VCEflyboy wrote:

Even DL now with a new CEO might scale down operations at SEA without losing face, because let's admit it, the SEA Asia hub has been a failure for DL and has even lost ground to AA in LAX which is a natural hub to Asia. SEA has never been despite its good geography. The traffic is just not there.

Let's not "admit it." I continue to be fascinating with the conclusion that Delta's SEA hub "has been a failure," considering that it appears - at least to me - to have achieved essentially the exact outcome it was intended for. It has helped Delta steadily reduce its reliance on an actually failing hub, that being NRT, while also facilitating innumerable new 1-stop connections between the U.S. (particularly west of the Rockies) and Asia that Delta in which previously had no presence. It's true that Delta reduces some frequencies on some routes in the winter but then so do other airlines, too, so not sure why this is allegedly some hallmark of failure for SEA. Similarly, it's also true that Delta flies some of its Asia routes from SEA with relatively small (for transpacific) widebodies like 767s but, again, I'm not sure why that signifies a failure - indeed, I'd say that Delta's ability to provide nonstop access to major markets in East Asia with such capacity flexibility is a strength, not a weakness.

As for the competition at LAX versus AA, my opinions are well-documented (rambled) around here so I'll not repeat them, other to say that objectively and realistically Delta was and remains at a competitive disadvantage to AA at LAX - at least for the foreseeable future - given its smaller footprint. And in addition, I'll also restate that I see less of a strategic play from Delta's perspective for building a major Asia gateway at LAX compared to SEA. I know many disagree, and that's fine. But in any event, I continue to believe that the combination of SEA and DTW is extremely compelling and powerful for Delta. Those two hubs, given their geographies and economic/competitive dynamics, provide Delta with an ideal hub structure to provide 1-stop connectivity to/from Asia for markets throughout the continental U.S. Delta was incredibly smart to recognize (1) the continual erosion of NRT and (2) the massive potential of SEA in light of (1).

VCEflyboy wrote:

Xiamen Air is not driven by market forces.. The local government flushes it with money to start routes that wouldn't be sustainable in a million years just because they can.

I won't disagree with that. But it will be interesting how many passengers will fly on the route. If it does turn out to be at least somewhat profitable, it might attract others.

I don't think you'll see DL scale down SEA operations except for the typical off-peak draw-downs. It will be interesting when we start seeing the negative part of the airline industry cycle. But it seems to me that DL is attempting to bolster existing service rather than opening new links. It might be summer thing, but I've noticed a lot more mainline and less RJ traffic at SEA...namely the 717's.

wedgetail737 wrote:

I don't think you'll see DL scale down SEA operations except for the typical off-peak draw-downs. It will be interesting when we start seeing the negative part of the airline industry cycle. But it seems to me that DL is attempting to bolster existing service rather than opening new links. It might be summer thing, but I've noticed a lot more mainline and less RJ traffic at SEA...namely the 717's.

I generally agree. Delta was and is serious about building SEA into a meaningful domestic hub supporting, and being supported by, a longhaul gateway. In addition to increasing capacity through using larger aircraft, I do think Delta still has some additional growth to go at SEA - subject to fleet limitations and facility constraints. There are several more markets - ORD, DFW, maybe STL and/or AUS, etc. - that seem like logical adds for Delta both given the domestic O&D and the potential feed contribution to Asia flights.

MSPNWA wrote:

The future of SEA is less overall service. It's such a highly over-served bloodbath that it can't continue to stay this way. One day the DL/AS war has to end. Somebody will have to give in. Until that happens though, the passengers are the real winners in SEA. They're getting spoiled.

LAX772LR wrote:

None of the above has an ounce of fact to it. Pure drivel.

Well, the inverse argument, that the SEA hub is a success, doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. In fact, the only solid evidence we have is that the SEA hub is well below average performer for DL.

There are some people that will back Delta up as being successful no matter what. But we must admit it's not about yield here it's about stealing market share away from AS and as long as there is AS in SEA and Delta can steal market share from then then SEA is a success for Delta. We all know why Delta is really in SEA if it was about building an Asian hub then we would only see flights to large markets that add value to the concept but when Delta adds SEA-SUN and JNU,KTN we know what that's all about.

klm617 wrote:

There are some people that will back Delta up as being successful no matter what.

Haha yeah that's me - blind Delta loyalist and apologist. Busted!

klm617 wrote:

We all know why Delta is really in SEA if it was about building an Asian hub then we would only see flights to large markets that add value to the concept but when Delta adds SEA-SUN and JNU,KTN we know what that's all about.

That's a red herring. The fact that Delta is organically growing SEA as a domestic hub to supplement the longhaul network doesn't undermine the argument that SEA's primary strategic value to Delta is as a gateway to Asia replacing NRT. Put another way, they're not mutually exclusive - both can be true. And indeed they are both true. The days of have a single-directional, single-bank longhaul hub with domestic flights timed solely to feed that are over. Probably the closest thing we have in the U.S. today is AA at JFK, but even there, over 45% of AA's daily departures are before 3pm, and in any event JFK is highly complimentary to AA's 170+ domestic/Canada flights out of LGA. Such limited, bank/traffic flow-specific hubs have been tried numerous times in numerous places ranging from JFK (TWA, towards the end) to PDX (Delta) to MIA (United) - all such hubs are gone. The economics of 2016 don't support a gateway like that - greater critical mass is needed to provide sufficient value to local customers so as to generate high-yielding traffic that supports both the domestic and longhaul flights.

In the case of SEA, Delta smartly recognized that it would never succeed in building SEA into an Asia gateway based solely on once-daily flights from U.S. cities to feed those longhaul flights. Beyond the fact that Delta's Asia flights don't all arrive and depart at SEA in neat, tight banks, the bigger issue would be that with once-daily domestic schedules like that, those flights would have to depend far too much on the connections, and the domestic O&D would be at a steep discount to Alaska because of inferior schedules. So Delta added more than once-daily domestic flights in lots of places, which created organic opportunities among these domestic flights, which provided further opportunities to provide other connections in geographically-relevant places (like Alaska, YVR, GEG, BOI, etc.).

That's reality.

The important point to remember with DL is they are deemphasizing NRT as a hub and moving more operations to PVG. The idea is to overfly NRT to other Asian markets.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

The important point to remember with DL is they are deemphasizing NRT as a hub and moving more operations to PVG. The idea is to overfly NRT to other Asian markets.

That's an important stated goal to remember, but it hasn't really happened too much to date, and many - myself included - remain highly skeptical of the efficacy, or even possibility, of such a move unless and until the U.S. and China get true Open Skies and Delta is able to (1) add as many flights as it wants to/from PVG, and (2) secure true antitrust-immunized JVs with China Eastern. Until then, the PVG "hub" goal is, and will remain, elusive - which only serves to further underscore the utility and strategic value of SEA.

LAX772LR wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Well, the inverse argument, that the SEA hub is a success, doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it.

You reach a conclusion, despite having NO IDEA what their per route financial targets, achievements, planned accepted-variance, nor projected scale, actually ARE for that hub........

.....yet, in the same post: you speak of not having "a shred of evidence."

Do you not see the irony in this situation?

Think about who you are talking too.

VCEflyboy wrote:

Even DL now with a new CEO might scale down operations at SEA without losing face, because let's admit it, the SEA Asia hub has been a failure for DL and has even lost ground to AA in LAX which is a natural hub to Asia. SEA has never been despite its good geography. The traffic is just not there.

Not a single word in this post is anywhere remotely close to being true.

For a developing hub, DL is quite happy with how SEA is going. Ed has no plan to pull down the hub what so ever. (also if I were you I would learn a little about how companies work. Ed was the president of DL before becoming CEO, if you think he wasn't behind the SEA hub then its very clear you have no idea how companies like DL operate.)

Overall, imo, SEA will always doing well. It'll always have plenty of Transpacific options. Transatlantic will come along as well albeit a little slower. SEA is the BOS of the Pac Nw.

Seattle as a market is doing exceptionally well. Look at all the companies there that are growing. With the Vancouver real estate market having massively run up, the money from the other side of the Pacific, mainly China is now flowing into Seattle. It is a very strong economy, and geographically Seattle's location makes sense for a Pacific hub.

There is a large domestic population and large population of multinational companies, driving business travel demand.

commavia wrote:

klm617 wrote:

There are some people that will back Delta up as being successful no matter what.

Haha yeah that's me - blind Delta loyalist and apologist. Busted!

klm617 wrote:

We all know why Delta is really in SEA if it was about building an Asian hub then we would only see flights to large markets that add value to the concept but when Delta adds SEA-SUN and JNU,KTN we know what that's all about.

That's a red herring....That's reality.

Keep in mind: you are trying to present sensible conclusions to a troll who tries to hijack every thread with the same drivel... he/she/it has already said that his/her/its posts are "not about facts"...

But keep trying, anyway!

commavia wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Haha yeah that's me - blind Delta loyalist and apologist. Busted!

biggest DL fanboy I know.....

hates AA too.