Horizon is axing 6 routes, per an internal company memo:
-I believe all of these are already loaded into the schedule

"Starting this fall, Horizon Air will be exiting six underperforming routes, two of which result in the complete exit of the Mammoth market. None of these changes are made without careful consideration of our guests and the communities we serve, as well as our people and our investors.

The impacted routes include:

Pasco (PSC)-Portland (PDX): Final Flight on Aug. 25
Bellingham (BLI)-PDX: Final Flight on Aug. 25
Eugene (EUG)-San Jose (SJC) – Final Flight on Aug. 25
Los Angeles (LAX) –Sun Valley (SUN): Final Flight on Oct. 14
LAX-Mammoth (MMH): Final Flight on Nov. 30
MMH-San Diego (SAN): Final Flight was Apr. 16 (seasonal exit will not be returning)
At the same time, we’re focused on increasing frequencies and capacity where it makes sense. Starting Aug. 25, we will add additional flying between Spokane (GEG) and Portland to provide nine daily departures, and between Seattle and Vancouver, BC (YVR), which will bring us to five daily Q-400 departures and one mainline departure. Starting Nov. 4 with the Winter schedule, we will increase both our Boise (BOI) to Portland service and Pasco to Seattle service by one trip each. Each will have seven daily departures.

Why this is necessary

“Our goal is to have a strong and sustainable Horizon Air. As a CPA carrier, we can bring more value to Air Group by adapting to match the needs of our guests and our largest customer, Alaska Airlines,” said Gary Beck, Horizon president and CEO.

Closing the Mammoth station was not an easy decision but is necessary as we face increased operational challenges. Only the Q400 is equipped with the right navigation resources to land there, and we have fewer available as we retire aircraft and optimize our regional flying to emphasize using E175s in southern California. Sun Valley faces similar challenges, but will still be served through Seattle.

In the cases of Bellingham and Pasco service to Portland, most guest are connecting in Portland to other destinations. We can operate more efficiently and offer more connecting options having them travel through Seattle. This also allows us to redirect the flight time and costs of a Portland service to other markets.

We launched the Eugene- San Jose market in November 2015, but as the market matured, the revenue gains have not kept pace with cost increases. The federal grant that supported this market ended in December 2017, compounding the financial challenges of continuing the route. Guests will still be able to connect to these cities through Portland."

32andBelow wrote:

Mammoth must be triggered. Crazy the e175 can’t land there.

All of our E175s are currently cat 1 awaiting further upgrades

Mammoth must be triggered. Crazy the e175 can’t land there.

Well, the reasoning for all of them make sense. At least there's that.

Is it me or does it appear that PDX hub days are slowly diminishing for AS...A lot of routes have been dropped as of late...............Sooner or later most regional flights out of Portland will require a connection via Seattle.....

I mean airlines fly cat 1 in Alaska all day long. Seems like a weak reason.

I also remember reading somewhere that the E175 wing span had clearance issues with hangars that were near to the taxiway in MMH. The Q could make it but the E175 was too wide

Surprised MMH-SAN is not doing well. Lots of ski maniacs in SAN looking for the next powder fix.

[twoid][/twoid]

BoeingGuy wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

I mean airlines fly cat 1 in Alaska all day long. Seems like a weak reason.

Not at all. Their 737s are Cat 3. They fly in Alaska.

Um theirs Saab’s and baby dash’s flying all
Over the state to airports much more extreme than MMH. Cat one.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Surprised MMH-SAN is not doing well. Lots of ski maniacs in SAN looking for the next powder fix.

They didn’t say it was poorly performing. They said it was an aircraft availability issue. I’m guessing as they are pulling down the Q’s, they need to reduce lines and a place like MMH is less important to the network than core routes in the PNW.

I don’t think Cat 2 has anything to do with MMH. I think it’s a performance issue, similar to ASE.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Surprised MMH-SAN is not doing well. Lots of ski maniacs in SAN looking for the next powder fix.

They didn’t say it was poorly performing. They said it was an aircraft availability issue. I’m guessing as they are pulling down the Q’s, they need to reduce lines and a place like MMH is less important to the network than core routes in the PNW.

"Starting this fall, Horizon Air will be exiting six underperforming routes"

There are other reasons obviously, but the route wasn't very successful.

I had high hopes for Sun Valley. At least they are keeping the SEA run. As for SAN to MMH, I wonder if it would have worked seasonally?

On a side note, my confidence in QX is growing stronger. Glad to see strategic moves being made to help the airline succeed.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well, the reasoning for all of them make sense. At least there's that.

I agree. AS has been trying to be everything to customers along the west coast. With the AS/VX merger, it seems they are trying to rationalize it's fleet and route structure.

452QX wrote:

All of our E175s are currently cat 1 awaiting further upgrades

What upgrades will they be getting and when?

From my flight school days I recall MMH has wingspan limitation.

I always thought MMH would do really well from so cal, but it seemed to struggle and was never a run away hit. The demand seemed too day of week or inconsistent for Horizon/alaska type scheduling. Seasonally it did do really well and some days, but others it was pretty empty too often.

JetsuiteX can maybe fill the void and add SAN. They already do Burbank to Mammoth. Their type of schedule might be better they can time the flights when the most people want to go and time them better. MMH has be seasonal to make money

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I always thought MMH would do really well from so cal, but it seemed to struggle and was never a run away hit. The demand seemed too day of week or inconsistent for Horizon/alaska type scheduling. Seasonally it did do really well and some days, but others it was pretty empty too often.

JetsuiteX can maybe fill the void and add SAN. They already do Burbank to Mammoth. Their type of schedule might be better they can time the flights when the most people want to go and time them better. MMH has be seasonal to make money

It’s a 5 hour drive or less from most of LA. when you are going skiing with a family or buddies and gear flying makes absolutely no sense. Mammoth has always been a regional destination.

Awaiting to hear from the government's approval for PAE.

Airlines don't leave routes that print $.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Surprised MMH-SAN is not doing well. Lots of ski maniacs in SAN looking for the next powder fix.

They didn’t say it was poorly performing. They said it was an aircraft availability issue. I’m guessing as they are pulling down the Q’s, they need to reduce lines and a place like MMH is less important to the network than core routes in the PNW.

n7371f wrote:

Airlines don't leave routes that print $.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Surprised MMH-SAN is not doing well. Lots of ski maniacs in SAN looking for the next powder fix.

They didn’t say it was poorly performing. They said it was an aircraft availability issue. I’m guessing as they are pulling down the Q’s, they need to reduce lines and a place like MMH is less important to the network than core routes in the PNW.

Of course not. However, part of the equation is spreading Q's thinly across the system. Something had to go so they picked the low hanging fruit. Sorry MMH.

As hard as it is to see routes go, I’m glad QX is getting their house in order!

NewtonPDX wrote:

Awaiting to hear from the government's approval for PAE.

j

Good point....these airframes are likely being redeployed in support of adding the new PAE service. There'll be some shuffling of the Q400's and E175's.

n7371f wrote:

Airlines don't leave routes that print $.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Surprised MMH-SAN is not doing well. Lots of ski maniacs in SAN looking for the next powder fix.

They didn’t say it was poorly performing. They said it was an aircraft availability issue. I’m guessing as they are pulling down the Q’s, they need to reduce lines and a place like MMH is less important to the network than core routes in the PNW.

They weren't doing great, I looked at the yields

Midwestindy wrote:

“Our goal is to have a strong and sustainable Horizon Air. As a CPA carrier, we can bring more value to Air Group by adapting to match the needs of our guests and our largest customer, Alaska Airlines,” said Gary Beck, Horizon president and CEO.

The distinction between "guests" and their actual customers is an interesting one. Is this the common terminology for internal documents?

NameOmitted wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

“Our goal is to have a strong and sustainable Horizon Air. As a CPA carrier, we can bring more value to Air Group by adapting to match the needs of our guests and our largest customer, Alaska Airlines,” said Gary Beck, Horizon president and CEO.

The distinction between "guests" and their actual customers is an interesting one. Is this the common terminology for internal documents?

Alaska adopted VX terminology and calls passengers guests. On AS, guests and customers are the same: the people who pay money and ride on the plane. For QX, their money comes from AS, so that is technically their customer.

QX was also handling the ramp operation of the UAX flight in MMH with UGE doing the customer service work, which always seemed a little odd to me. Guess we’ll see if this will affect that route or not.

lhpdx wrote:

Is it me or does it appear that PDX hub days are slowly diminishing for AS...A lot of routes have been dropped as of late...............Sooner or later most regional flights out of Portland will require a connection via Seattle.....

I have to agree. It is beginning to look like a trend in that direction, isn't it?. Maybe having 2 hubs so close together in the seasonal and weather-challenged PNW is being re-thought now that AAG now has lots of options in mid and southern CA to consider as replacements for the PDX hub?

RE: MMH service to SoCal. AFAIK, the routes were subsidized by the Mammoth Lakes Tourist Board (or some such organization) and I'm thinking the subsidies stopped?

Also, from a SAN perspective, it appears that MMH was to be the only remaining Q route from here. All other Q routes to SAN, MRY, STS and FAT, have all converted to EMJs so AAG might have also realized that due to fleet simplification, it was easier to just dump the single route requiring a Q.

For the SAN skiers, we still (I hope) have Steamboat (HDN) served by AAG during ski season. (Last time I checked!) Although I'm sure this is also a subsidized route so we'll see what happens there.

bb

Sad to see MMH go away! Definitely more of a seasonal market. The airport leaders had be reviewing expanding the Runaway. Last year there was a study also done about adding a new airline terminal area.
AS had the majority of the market share this will definitely put everything on hold!

Flyguy

F9Animal wrote:

As for SAN to MMH, I wonder if it would have worked seasonally?

The service has run for the last few years from mid-December until about mid-April. LA-MMH ran year-round.

wnflyguy wrote:

Sad to see MMH go away! Definitely more of a seasonal market. The airport leaders had be reviewing expanding the Runaway. Last year there was a study also done about adding a new airline terminal area. AS had the majority of the market share this will definitely put everything on hold!

Flyguy

If I remember correctly, UAex used to fly MMH-SNA and MMH-SAN; I believe that was also subsidized service. When it ended, AS (took over the subsidy) and started flying the route. The AAG a/c was larger than that used by UAx which I'm sure was a problem as well.

Maybe someone else will take over the route again. I think there's definitely a seasonal market but how big it is might be the question. Someone up-thread mentioned that MMH is a 5-hour drive from LA which would make SAN-MMH at least a 7-8 hour haul by surface transportation! That's pretty unattractive.

Who knows, Maybe Ted Vallas will take a chance and try flying the route (from SAN) with CP Air!

bb

SANFan wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

As for SAN to MMH, I wonder if it would have worked seasonally?

The service has run for the last few years from mid-December until about mid-April. LA-MMH ran year-round.

wnflyguy wrote:

Sad to see MMH go away! Definitely more of a seasonal market. The airport leaders had be reviewing expanding the Runaway. Last year there was a study also done about adding a new airline terminal area. AS had the majority of the market share this will definitely put everything on hold!

Flyguy

If I remember correctly, UAex used to fly MMH-SNA and MMH-SAN; I believe that was also subsidized service. When it ended, AS (took over the subsidy) and started flying the route. The AAG a/c was larger than that used by UAx which I'm sure was a problem as well.

Maybe someone else will take over the route again. I think there's definitely a seasonal market but how big it is might be the question. Someone up-thread mentioned that MMH is a 5-hour drive from LA which would make SAN-MMH at least a 7-8 hour haul by surface transportation! That's pretty unattractive.

Who knows, Maybe Ted Vallas will take a chance and try flying the route (from SAN) with CP Air!

bb

6.5 hours according to google. So you could probably beat that. It’s not like they have to drive north to LA first. It’s east of both cities.

Plus Seattle - Lewiston, Idaho will be cancelled.

SANFan wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

Is it me or does it appear that PDX hub days are slowly diminishing for AS...A lot of routes have been dropped as of late...............Sooner or later most regional flights out of Portland will require a connection via Seattle.....

I have to agree. It is beginning to look like a trend in that direction, isn't it?. Maybe having 2 hubs so close together in the seasonal and weather-challenged PNW is being re-thought now that AAG now has lots of options in mid and southern CA to consider as replacements for the PDX hub?

RE: MMH service to SoCal. AFAIK, the routes were subsidized by the Mammoth Lakes Tourist Board (or some such organization) and I'm thinking the subsidies stopped?

Also, from a SAN perspective, it appears that MMH was to be the only remaining Q route from here. All other Q routes to SAN, MRY, STS and FAT, have all converted to EMJs so AAG might have also realized that due to fleet simplification, it was easier to just dump the single route requiring a Q.

For the SAN skiers, we still (I hope) have Steamboat (HDN) served by AAG during ski season. (Last time I checked!) Although I'm sure this is also a subsidized route so we'll see what happens there.

bb

I don't really see it as all bad for PDX. Yes, we lose two very weak routes (PSC and BLI), but we gain frequency on strong routes (GEG and BOI). Actually, this move has the potential to increase AS/QX passenger numbers through PDX. I think we have to assume the weakest AS destinations will generally not see service from PDX in the future. Because of much larger populations in SEA, LAX and SFO, those airports are more likely to be able to sustain flights to the smaller, weaker markets.

32andBelow wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Someone up-thread mentioned that MMH is a 5-hour drive from LA which would make SAN-MMH at least a 7-8 hour haul by surface transportation! That's pretty unattractive.

Who knows, Maybe Ted Vallas will take a chance and try flying the route (from SAN) with CP Air!

bb

6.5 hours according to google. So you could probably beat that. It’s not like they have to drive north to LA first. It’s east of both cities.

Okay, I'll buy 7 hours by going up I-15 from SAN to Hesperia and picking US 395. And assuming good weather! And still plenty of traffic going up through Riverside. Whatever it actually turns out to be (depending on the route taken) that's still a long drive, especially if the r/t drive is part of a 'quick' weekend ski getaway!

BTW, the cut flights still appear on AS's online skeds. I Assume they will go away (and appear on tomorrow's OAG thread) with Sunday's OAG load by AS.

bb

Airnerd wrote:

SANFan wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

Is it me or does it appear that PDX hub days are slowly diminishing for AS...A lot of routes have been dropped as of late...............Sooner or later most regional flights out of Portland will require a connection via Seattle.....

I have to agree. It is beginning to look like a trend in that direction, isn't it?. Maybe having 2 hubs so close together in the seasonal and weather-challenged PNW is being re-thought now that AAG now has lots of options in mid and southern CA to consider as replacements for the PDX hub?

RE: MMH service to SoCal. AFAIK, the routes were subsidized by the Mammoth Lakes Tourist Board (or some such organization) and I'm thinking the subsidies stopped?

Also, from a SAN perspective, it appears that MMH was to be the only remaining Q route from here. All other Q routes to SAN, MRY, STS and FAT, have all converted to EMJs so AAG might have also realized that due to fleet simplification, it was easier to just dump the single route requiring a Q.

For the SAN skiers, we still (I hope) have Steamboat (HDN) served by AAG during ski season. (Last time I checked!) Although I'm sure this is also a subsidized route so we'll see what happens there.

bb

I don't really see it as all bad for PDX. Yes, we lose two very weak routes (PSC and BLI), but we gain frequency on strong routes (GEG and BOI). Actually, this move has the potential to increase AS/QX passenger numbers through PDX. I think we have to assume the weakest AS destinations will generally not see service from PDX in the future. Because of much larger populations in SEA, LAX and SFO, those airports are more likely to be able to sustain flights to the smaller, weaker markets.

I’d imagine if the daily flights to BLI and PSC were mostly connecting traffic that they aren’t really much of a loss for PDX. BLI is a straight shot via SEA while PSC is just not that far to drive. I think GEG and BOI are rather bland substitutes - such is life. It was great back when the had the Metro’s and F-27/28’s and connected over GEG, BOI, etc.

lhpdx wrote:

Is it me or does it appear that PDX hub days are slowly diminishing for AS...A lot of routes have been dropped as of late...............Sooner or later most regional flights out of Portland will require a connection via Seattle.....

Naw, I doubt it. The PDX flights were all single dailies (if that) so it's not a sign of a PDX drawdown. I think once we see a rationalization of the fleets with VX, that ultimately, we will see AS focus on it's strengths - which is the Pacific Northwest. PDX stands to grow.

dc10lover wrote:

Plus Seattle - Lewiston, Idaho will be cancelled.

Hasnt this route been running pretty much from the beginning of QX?

BigGSFO wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

Is it me or does it appear that PDX hub days are slowly diminishing for AS...A lot of routes have been dropped as of late...............Sooner or later most regional flights out of Portland will require a connection via Seattle.....

Naw, I doubt it. The PDX flights were all single dailies (if that) so it's not a sign of a PDX drawdown. I think once we see a rationalization of the fleets with VX, that ultimately, we will see AS focus on it's strengths - which is the Pacific Northwest. PDX stands to grow.

Yeah, given all that was said in the memo about PDX service, these 2 cuts may not even be a net loss of departures for AS.

BUT I know I always look at the loss of routes (read: destinations) as pretty negative. I certainly do with SAN. And there have been a few of those in the last few years at PDX. It signifies some sort of failure, perhaps by AS for choosing the route in the first place, or by the airport for not being able to support it. I know that's not necessarily the case but that's just my opinion.

bb

wnflyguy wrote:

Sad to see MMH go away! Definitely more of a seasonal market. The airport leaders had be reviewing expanding the Runaway. Last year there was a study also done about adding a new airline terminal area.
AS had the majority of the market share this will definitely put everything on hold!

Flyguy

No question this is a huge blow to the resort. Mammoth has their business offices right next to LAX because of the daily flight. All of the condo sales people and real estate agents mention these flights to people from LA. They might be able to subsidize united to start a less then daily or seasonal but it's gonna cost them if they want it.

Jetsuite x I think is the answer lower number of seats to fill and schedule can be very adjusted to demand.
As mentioned most families will just rent or get in their SUV packed with stuff the pain of flying, baggae fees, and TSA in 2018 makes the drive alot more attractive.

JetSuiteX would be an interesting alternative. Hope that happens.

Looking at EUG - SJC, more alternatives from EUG always struck me as a good thing but the timing was odd....EUG - SJC 4:30 - 6:12pm, return 8:00pm - 9:40 pm. Was poor performance due to scheduling or is it also partly Q400 availability?

SANFan wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Someone up-thread mentioned that MMH is a 5-hour drive from LA which would make SAN-MMH at least a 7-8 hour haul by surface transportation! That's pretty unattractive.

Who knows, Maybe Ted Vallas will take a chance and try flying the route (from SAN) with CP Air!

bb

6.5 hours according to google. So you could probably beat that. It’s not like they have to drive north to LA first. It’s east of both cities.

Okay, I'll buy 7 hours by going up I-15 from SAN to Hesperia and picking US 395. And assuming good weather! And still plenty of traffic going up through Riverside. Whatever it actually turns out to be (depending on the route taken) that's still a long drive, especially if the r/t drive is part of a 'quick' weekend ski getaway!

BTW, the cut flights still appear on AS's online skeds. I Assume they will go away (and appear on tomorrow's OAG thread) with Sunday's OAG load by AS.

bb

Wonder if a larger bird was run by QX not really because that was the only thing that QX had in terms of fleet, but instead to accommodate all those pieces of ski baggage. Cant imagine an E-120 was very accommodating of 72 inch long skis.

washingtonflyer wrote:

(RE: MMH service cuts) I wonder if a larger bird was run by QX not really because that was the only thing that QX had in terms of fleet, but instead to accommodate all those pieces of ski baggage. Cant imagine an E-120 was very accommodating of 72 inch long skis.

That might very well have been a factor. It seems that the entire winter operation at MMH was full of issues and challenges and even if the routes were subsidized by MMH, and especially considering the need to keep the Q in service at 2 cities, LAX and SAN, that otherwise didn't need it anymore, AAG made a sensible decision to cut MMH from the route map.

These types of issues at other ski resort airports might be pretty common but I guess the cx need to weigh the financial bennies of such service vs. the costs and network-related problems. To the best of my knowledge, AAG still has 2 seasonal ski destinations -- SUN and HDN -- and it'll be interesting to follow the future of their air service.

bb

SANFan wrote:

That might very well have been a factor. It seems that the entire winter operation at MMH was full of issues and challenges and even if the routes were subsidized by MMH, and especially considering the need to keep the Q in service at 2 cities, LAX and SAN, that otherwise didn't need it anymore, AAG made a sensible decision to cut MMH from the route map.

So will the Q400 be gone entirely from California by fall? I believe SEA-STS and SMF-PDX are still slated to remain Q400 as of this point. Anything else?

ucdtim17 wrote:

So will the Q400 be gone entirely from California by fall? I believe SEA-STS and SMF-PDX are still slated to remain Q400 as of this point. Anything else?

We have to wait 'til the August 26 sked is finalized and loaded to find this out. According to the current version of the skeds for that date, which are essentially place holder and ghost segments, there are still tons of Qs flying out of SAN and LAX this fall. (I don't know about the Bay Area or other CA stations because there's no point in even looking!)

Maybe someone from AAG can answer your question. In the meantime, I hope the 8/26 skeds will be loaded soon, hopefully this weekend or next at the latest... I expect that will be a very important and revealing schedule.

bb

AAG's fall schedule will be interesting to see. Domestic carriers had the largest average fare drop in April in recent times and carriers all had lower LFs (AAG had the largest drop again). Would not be surprised to see more cuts.

tphuang wrote:

AAG's fall schedule will be interesting to see. Domestic carriers had the largest average fare drop in April in recent times and carriers all had lower LFs (AAG had the largest drop again). Would not be surprised to see more cuts.

It's gonna be interesting to see what their route map looks like in a year or so, and to see what successes and challenges they face as they work through this post-merger period.

washingtonflyer wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Okay, I'll buy 7 hours by going up I-15 from SAN to Hesperia and picking US 395. And assuming good weather! And still plenty of traffic going up through Riverside. Whatever it actually turns out to be (depending on the route taken) that's still a long drive, especially if the r/t drive is part of a 'quick' weekend ski getaway!

BTW, the cut flights still appear on AS's online skeds. I Assume they will go away (and appear on tomorrow's OAG thread) with Sunday's OAG load by AS.

bb

Wonder if a larger bird was run by QX not really because that was the only thing that QX had in terms of fleet, but instead to accommodate all those pieces of ski baggage. Cant imagine an E-120 was very accommodating of 72 inch long skis.

OO ran E-120s into SUN for years without much trouble.