I came across this positive write-up on anna.aero. Some interesting factual information...PDX has witnessed a 45% increase in passengers since 2010
. Also a nice recap of the 2018 routes that have been added.
PDX is an amazing facility and we have much to look forward to over the next several years in terms of growth and facility expansion/rehab.http://www.anna.aero/2018/08/22/routes- ... 0-million/
There haven’t been any new nonstops to fill unserved routes from PDX in 2018 and so far none have been announced for 2019. All new flights this year have been extra runs on already served routes.
PDX will likely just miss the 20 million passenger mark in 2018. Growth has stalled at ~5% annually. The only thing likely to stimulate growth will be making some seasonal routes year round (BWI, PHL, IAD, LHR) and new nonstops to unserved cities: *Domestic, to the eastern U.S. (e.g. BNA, FLL/MIA, MSY); International, to somewhere in Asia (e.g. ICN, TPE or HKG) and Paris, probably via foreign carriers (KE, CI, CX, DI?) on newer aircraft.
Unfortunately, interest in expansion at PDX by many airlines—especially Southwest, Frontier and JetBlue—has been less than lukewarm. Domestically, it appears to be all up to Alaska.
The Port of Portland doesn’t seem to be getting much accomplished. At the least, they should be working with airports that are interested in establishing nonstops to Portland (e.g. BNA, MSY, CVG, TPA), even if it means initially waiving some passenger and landing fees.
*People don’t like having to make connections especially transcon in the winter, which significantly depresses demand.
Yes, before PDX sees any new transcon destinations, Alaska needs to figure out how to make ATL, BWI and PHL work as year-round service.
With that being said, I have a sneaking suspicion that these routes could very well indeed work just fine in the winter months. I think what's keeping Alaska from expanding to year-round service as well as to new destinations is the fact that they "need to protect" their ever so important SEA hub from Delta encroaching on their local traffic. They need all the resources that they can get to be directed at SEA, even if that means pulling (or significantly limiting) service at their other focus cities, such as PDX. This means that Alaska is trying to combine PDX traffic with SEA traffic in an effort to limit Delta's growing operations at SEA, which explains why Alaska has tons of daily PDX-SEA flights.
It sucks for the PDX customers, because that means that we have to constantly make a one-stop connections at SEA, or just fly a different airline altogether; and I really don't want to have to connect in SEA if I'm flying in the opposite direction. It doesn't make any sense at all to connect at a hub north of PDX when your final destination is south or east of PDX, and you ultimately end up backtracking on your route.
SFO (and LAX to a much lesser degree) are both also getting their resources pulled and some of the A320s that operated on much of the routes that Alaska recently pulled from SFO and LAX have all been relocated to SEA. Like I said, Alaska is taking all of the ammunition (any extra planes) that they can get their hands on and they are using it in their ongoing effort to defend their SEA home turf and fight off Delta.
As for United cutting PDX-IAD in January through the first few weeks of March, I think that's also a funneling traffic issue as well. During the slow travel season, I'm assuming that United wants any passengers trying to get to Dulles from PDX (and vice versa) to connect via SFO or DEN. During the slow travel months, the number of people traveling (specifically through PDX in particular) significantly drops off, so there's not enough passengers to warrant a daily nonstop PDX-IAD flight within those months. The loads on PDX-IAD, when it is operating, have almost always been around 90%+ and before they suspended the route last year, I honestly thought that they were at one point, considering adding a second daily flight on that route. It's a shame that they cannot make it work.