wedgetail737 wrote:

I was kind of hoping AS would open more secondary CA airports like SCK and BFL, but I don't think it's very likely.

Maybe BFL. I can see it.

Early this winter when AS pulls out of MMH, UA will start flying from MMH to LAX, SFO and DEN. The LAX flights will be your round. This is the second time AS has burned me not long after convincing me to get an AS credit card. They pulled out of ACV when I lived up there, and now MMH where I live now. Think I will use my miles to fly to Asia in business class then become a free agent untethered to the miles shenanigans. I figure AS will dilute their miles sooner than later anyway

PlanesNTrains wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I was kind of hoping AS would open more secondary CA airports like SCK and BFL, but I don't think it's very likely.

Maybe BFL. I can see it.

I know that airport officials have been working on getting flights to SEA, but without subsidies, who knows if that will ever start...

flyfresno wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I was kind of hoping AS would open more secondary CA airports like SCK and BFL, but I don't think it's very likely.

Maybe BFL. I can see it.

I know that airport officials have been working on getting flights to SEA, but without subsidies, who knows if that will ever start...

SEA-BFL-SAN would be nice. BFL is just not a market I know much about.

flyfresno wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I was kind of hoping AS would open more secondary CA airports like SCK and BFL, but I don't think it's very likely.

Maybe BFL. I can see it.

I know that airport officials have been working on getting flights to SEA, but without subsidies, who knows if that will ever start...

A hub in San Jose, flights to all smaller cities, just one stop to everywhere.

AirFiero wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Maybe BFL. I can see it.

I know that airport officials have been working on getting flights to SEA, but without subsidies, who knows if that will ever start...

A hub in San Jose, flights to all smaller cities, just one stop to everywhere.

I like the idea of a RON in FAT as a connection to SJC, and certainly BFL is even further away so might make sense. I just don’t see SJC-FAT/BFL as strong contenders overall.

wedgetail737 wrote:

I was kind of hoping AS would open more secondary CA airports like SCK and BFL, but I don't think it's very likely.

Besides SCK and BFL, I would think they could do well at CCR and TLV. But on the flip side, they aren’t even in LGB, ACV, and RDD anymore which are probably bigger markets.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

I know that airport officials have been working on getting flights to SEA, but without subsidies, who knows if that will ever start...

A hub in San Jose, flights to all smaller cities, just one stop to everywhere.

I like the idea of a RON in FAT as a connection to SJC, and certainly BFL is even further away so might make sense. I just don’t see SJC-FAT/BFL as strong contenders overall.

Yeah, I know. I just miss the AA hub. Can’t blame an anutter from dreaming, can you?

BoeingGuy wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I was kind of hoping AS would open more secondary CA airports like SCK and BFL, but I don't think it's very likely.

Besides SCK and BFL, I would think they could do well at CCR and TLV. But on the flip side, they aren’t even in LGB, ACV, and RDD anymore which are probably bigger markets.

TLV...?

BoeingGuy wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I was kind of hoping AS would open more secondary CA airports like SCK and BFL, but I don't think it's very likely.

Besides SCK and BFL, I would think they could do well at CCR and TLV. But on the flip side, they aren’t even in LGB, ACV, and RDD anymore which are probably bigger markets.

CCR would be great but I think the nimbys have spoken there.

I've wondered about SAN-BFL for a while but just don't know if there's enough traffic -- none shows up on Table 6 on the DOT Pax stats but that's not a surprise. IIRC, no traffic showed between FAT and SAN either when there was not service. Now we're on the verge of triple-daily, year-round service from AAG!

SAN-BFL is now a 4-5 hour drive, about the same as SAN-SBA, another potential route for AAG that I think about often. AS probably has a pretty good feel for the potential for either route from SAN; at this point in time, the answer is clear -- there is no service in either market. But they do have to have the success of SAN-FAT in mind as they ponder more intra-state service from SAN. I do hope at least one of these routes will be started at some point.

SAN-STS is another route that has done quite well despite no market existing until the flights started. I understand that at least the STS airport folks are trying to get a second r/t to SAN from AAG; that move makes sense to me in order for business folks to be able to do day trips in either direction. A morning r/t would sure complement the evening one that currently exists.

Finally, I feel SCK holds good potential for AAG. G4 is serving SAN-SCK (I think but I never really know with Allegiant...) Let's say it this way, "G4 recently served SAN-SCK and may still be doing so." My guess is a daily EMJ op'ing SEA-SCK-SAN might be a sensible gamble.

That whole area surrounding Stockton is getting very crowded and might very well pull in folks on the south end of the Sacramento area plus everything all the way down to at least Modesto. I'm quite sure SAN-SCK would succeed, particularly on a daily basis (unlike G4 service) and SCK-SEA might also do well. Remember, SAN-MRY is the only service on AAG into that airport, without tie-ins to the PNW so a SAN-SCK-SAN turn is certainly an option as well.

bb

SANFan wrote:

I've wondered about SAN-BFL for a while but just don't know if there's enough traffic -- none shows up on Table 6 on the DOT Pax stats but that's not a surprise. IIRC, no traffic showed between FAT and SAN either when there was not service. Now we're on the verge of triple-daily, year-round service from AAG!

SAN-BFL is now a 4-5 hour drive, about the same as SAN-SBA, another potential route for AAG that I think about often. AS probably has a pretty good feel for the potential for either route from SAN; at this point in time, the answer is clear -- there is no service in either market. But they do have to have the success of SAN-FAT in mind as they ponder more intra-state service from SAN. I do hope at least one of these routes will be started at some point.

SAN-STS is another route that has done quite well despite no market existing until the flights started. I understand that at least the STS airport folks are trying to get a second r/t to SAN from AAG; that move makes sense to me in order for business folks to be able to do day trips in either direction. A morning r/t would sure complement the evening one that currently exists.

Finally, I feel SCK holds good potential for AAG. G4 is serving SAN-SCK (I think but I never really know with Allegiant...) Let's say it this way, "G4 recently served SAN-SCK and may still be doing so." My guess is a daily EMJ op'ing SEA-SCK-SAN might be a sensible gamble.

That whole area surrounding Stockton is getting very crowded and might very well pull in folks on the south end of the Sacramento area plus everything all the way down to at least Modesto. I'm quite sure SAN-SCK would succeed, particularly on a daily basis (unlike G4 service) and SCK-SEA might also do well. Remember, SAN-MRY is the only service on AAG into that airport, without tie-ins to the PNW so a SAN-SCK-SAN turn is certainly an option as well.

bb

The best bet with Stockton would be luring people away from East Bay suburbs like Livermore, Antioch, and Dublin, and Sacramento suburbs like Lodi and Elk Grove. Problem is, there would need to be a large critical mass of flights and competitive fares for the “convenience” of using SCK to overcome the prices and schedules in OAK and SMF (and, to a lesser extent, SFO). I can’t see SCK supporting a lot by itself. I’ve always joked that SouthWest would need to move from SMF to SCK for that airport to have a chance beyond a few leisure flights. I think they half threatened to do that back when SMF had to raise fees to pay for that ridiculous tram, but it obviously want serious.

flyfresno wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Finally, I feel SCK holds good potential for AAG. G4 is serving SAN-SCK (I think but I never really know with Allegiant...) Let's say it this way, "G4 recently served SAN-SCK and may still be doing so." My guess is a daily EMJ op'ing SEA-SCK-SAN might be a sensible gamble.

That whole area surrounding Stockton is getting very crowded and might very well pull in folks on the south end of the Sacramento area plus everything all the way down to at least Modesto. I'm quite sure SAN-SCK would succeed, particularly on a daily basis (unlike G4 service) and SCK-SEA might also do well. Remember, SAN-MRY is the only service on AAG into that airport, without tie-ins to the PNW so a SAN-SCK-SAN turn is certainly an option as well.

bb

The best bet with Stockton would be luring people away from East Bay suburbs like Livermore, Antioch, and Dublin, and Sacramento suburbs like Lodi and Elk Grove. Problem is, there would need to be a large critical mass of flights and competitive fares for the “convenience” of using SCK to overcome the prices and schedules in OAK and SMF (and, to a lesser extent, SFO). I can’t see SCK supporting a lot by itself. I’ve always joked that SouthWest would need to move from SMF to SCK for that airport to have a chance beyond a few leisure flights. I think they half threatened to do that back when SMF had to raise fees to pay for that ridiculous tram, but it obviously want serious.

SCK has been having what is described as productive new service talks that are heating up for flights to LAX and/or PHX with "unnamed" airline(s). They have a SCASD grant to support LAX service. Rumors are that another airline besides Allegiant may add flights at SCK in 2019.

SCK also recently was told TSA agreed to add a second security lane once another airline starts service. I have also heard other intriguing info from Stockton Airport but I won't say more right now since it is unconfirmed info.

Given freeway traffic conditions it is possible for SCK to attract East Bay and Sacramento area travelers. This link is a heat map from a 2013 Allegiant management presentation. It shows the growth in East Bay and Sacramento area market penetration for Allegiant's flights at SCK between 2009 and 2012.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1362468/000143774913001391/a21.jpg

amcnd wrote:

SkyWest has 4 aircraft ruffly flying DAL-DCA/LGA... those routes end soon. So that will shift 4 aircraft basically west. So they will have access to add flights somewhere... we should know soon..

Those airplanes are already scheduled. Mostly they are doing DAL-SJC, SFO and LAX.

FA9295 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I was kind of hoping AS would open more secondary CA airports like SCK and BFL, but I don't think it's very likely.

Besides SCK and BFL, I would think they could do well at CCR and TLV. But on the flip side, they aren’t even in LGB, ACV, and RDD anymore which are probably bigger markets.

TLV...?

Probably meant TVL. South Tahoe.

SBA-SAN has single seat Surfliner service which might preclude someone starting it but BFL requires a bus and a train so not nearly as convenient. Still, lots of options out of SAN.

I honestly think a once-daily SAN-ACV would work, or even a SAN-ACV-RDD-SAN triangle. I was always miffed they pulled out of ACV in the first place. As far as other intra-CA routes, SNA-FAT seems like a no-brainer.

Chugach wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Besides SCK and BFL, I would think they could do well at CCR and TLV. But on the flip side, they aren’t even in LGB, ACV, and RDD anymore which are probably bigger markets.

TLV...?

Probably meant TVL. South Tahoe.

Correct. That’s what I meant, thanks.

I was thinking that a Q400 LAX-TVL and SJC-TVL would do well.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Correct. That’s what I meant, thanks.

I was thinking that a Q400 LAX-TVL and SJC-TVL would do well.

SAN-TVL used to work as well, and I think SNA-TVL was flown by Air California back in the days of Electras.

The problem with Tahoe, besides the constant fights with the NIMBYs (which is why only the turboprops were allowed to fly there) was the constant wx issues. I know that PSA certainly had ongoing problems and finally gave up serving the airport. That was YEARs (decades) ago and there hasn't been anything that I'm aware of in the way of commercial service since -- at least nothing on anything over 6 or 8 seats.

The skiers in SoCal would love the route but I just don't know if QX, or anyone, would want to or be permitted to try it. Even if it worked and was possible, I can foresee it being just like PSA who had to keep a couple of Electras in their fleet just to serve TVL, after they had gone pretty much all jet. When TVL ended, those Electras were gone too. I know SAN is all-jet now on AAG and I imagine LAX will be as well very soon (MMH ends next month and STS soon I believe) so AAG would need to keep a small sub-fleet of Qs around in SoCal just to fly to Tahoe and I don't think they would do that.

bb

SANFan wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Correct. That’s what I meant, thanks.

I was thinking that a Q400 LAX-TVL and SJC-TVL would do well.

SAN-TVL used to work as well, and I think SNA-TVL was flown by Air California back in the days of Electras.

The problem with Tahoe, besides the constant fights with the NIMBYs (which is why only the turboprops were allowed to fly there) was the constant wx issues. I know that PSA certainly had ongoing problems and finally gave up serving the airport. That was YEARs (decades) ago and there hasn't been anything that I'm aware of in the way of commercial service since -- at least nothing on anything over 6 or 8 seats.

The skiers in SoCal would love the route but I just don't know if QX, or anyone, would want to or be permitted to try it. Even if it worked and was possible, I can foresee it being just like PSA who had to keep a couple of Electras in their fleet just to serve TVL, after they had gone pretty much all jet. When TVL ended, those Electras were gone too. I know SAN is all-jet now on AAG and I imagine LAX will be as well very soon (MMH ends next month and STS soon I believe) so AAG would need to keep a small sub-fleet of Qs around in SoCal just to fly to Tahoe and I don't think they would do that.

bb

To add on, the remainder of the Q400 fleet is shifting back north as SoCal goes Embraer

Wingtips56 wrote:

Golden West flew into TVL with a Dash-7, though not for a long time.
Following the PSA and Air California Electras, AirCal flew DC9-80s and 737-300s into TVL for years, with AA continuing the 733 for a short while. It can be done with the mainline jets, but there were heavy weight restrictions if taking off facing the mountain, or even overflights to RNO in certain conditions and being too heavy to drop and land from the mountain side. Freight and non-revs were bumped more often than not.
I think regional jets have gone in there since, but I can't say that for sure. Tahoe Air (short lived) tried business with the 737-200, from July to October 1999, when they went bust. That I believe was the last commercial flying at TVL.

Hasn't the airport turned non-commercial, so even the QX 400s aren't an option?

Allegiant flew into TVL when they first started (1998-1999) as well. BUR-TVL and LAS-TVL were done with DC-9-20s.

Source: http://www.departedflights.com/G4081799.html

'902

TWA902fly wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Golden West flew into TVL with a Dash-7, though not for a long time.
Following the PSA and Air California Electras, AirCal flew DC9-80s and 737-300s into TVL for years, with AA continuing the 733 for a short while. It can be done with the mainline jets, but there were heavy weight restrictions if taking off facing the mountain, or even overflights to RNO in certain conditions and being too heavy to drop and land from the mountain side. Freight and non-revs were bumped more often than not.
I think regional jets have gone in there since, but I can't say that for sure. Tahoe Air (short lived) tried business with the 737-200, from July to October 1999, when they went bust. That I believe was the last commercial flying at TVL.

Hasn't the airport turned non-commercial, so even the QX 400s aren't an option?

Allegiant flew into TVL when they first started (1998-1999) as well. BUR-TVL and LAS-TVL were done with DC-9-20s.

Source: http://www.departedflights.com/G4081799.html

'902

Reno Air also flew MD-80s TVL-LAX for a year or two.

Well don't I feel silly, and I stand corrected. I just do not remember commercial jets of any flavor ever being allowed into TVL!

bb

SANFan wrote:

Well don't I feel silly, and I stand corrected. I just do not remember commercial jets of any flavor ever being allowed into TVL!

bb

So did a Pacific Air 727 in around 1966. However, you are correct that in the 1970s scheduled jets were not allowed. Holiday, PSA, and Air California flew Electra’s into there. PSA applied to fly 727s there in the mid-1970s and was rejected.

Allegiant was the last commercial flights at TVL. G4 ended service at TVL in November 2000.

There would be a couple difficulties for any airline to start TVL service.

First, TVL does not have a currently active Part 139 Airport Operating certification for commercial service.

Second, the TVL terminal building was remodeled to serve as the South Lake Tahoe City Hall. New terminal facilities would have to be built.

Is PDX considered a true hub for Alaska Airlines?

Noise wrote:

Is PDX considered a true hub for Alaska Airlines?

Yes, PDX still has a lot of connection opportunities from other airports in Oregon and the Northwest.

LAXBUR wrote:

Noise wrote:

Is PDX considered a true hub for Alaska Airlines?

Yes, PDX still has a lot of connection opportunities from other airports in Oregon and the Northwest.

There is no question that PDX in fact is the second largest hub of the carrier, behind only SEA.

bb

PDX is a very profitable hub for AS. There is no DL challenging them and hurting their yields.

HPRamper wrote:

I'm going to turn the page back a couple of years and hope for SEA-FAR and SEA-FSD on E-jets.

Yes please! I would think with Microsoft in both towns, that would help the cause.

SANFan wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

Noise wrote:

Is PDX considered a true hub for Alaska Airlines?

Yes, PDX still has a lot of connection opportunities from other airports in Oregon and the Northwest.

There is no question that PDX in fact is the second largest hub of the carrier, behind only SEA.

bb

I think they're point was asking whether or not PDX is considered a hub or a focus city. I get the feeling that Alaska has one hub, SEA, and then has a bunch of focus cities scattered across the west coast (ANC, PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SAN).

tphuang wrote:

PDX is a very profitable hub for AS. There is no DL challenging them and hurting their yields.

On some routes, DL certainly is (although only to their larger hubs). There's a reason why AS stopped PDX-DTW, and still only uses the E175 instead of the B737 on PDX-MSP. PDX-JFK is also another bloodbath between the them, I wonder what the yield comparison is there between AS and DL...

FA9295 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

Yes, PDX still has a lot of connection opportunities from other airports in Oregon and the Northwest.

There is no question that PDX in fact is the second largest hub of the carrier, behind only SEA.

bb

I think they're point was asking whether or not PDX is considered a hub or a focus city. I get the feeling that Alaska has one hub, SEA, and then has a bunch of focus cities scattered across the west coast (ANC, PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SAN).

“With West Coast hubs in Seattle; Portland, Oregon; Anchorage, Alaska; San Francisco and Los Angeles; Alaska calls Seattle home. Alaska Air Group offers more flights to more destinations from the West Coast than any other airline.”

https://newsroom.alaskaair.com/cities-served

FA9295 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

PDX-JFK is also another bloodbath between them, I wonder what the yield comparison is there between AS and DL...

JetBlue must be doing the worst.

jbpdx wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

PDX-JFK is also another bloodbath between them, I wonder what the yield comparison is there between AS and DL...

JetBlue must be doing the worst.

Indeed. I honestly thought that they were going to ax the route in their latest update, but it appears to be safe for now...
From a non-biased perspective though, I honestly think JetBlue should just end the route. It's clearly losing money for them, and the plane could probably make more money for them somewhere else...

FA9295 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

Yes, PDX still has a lot of connection opportunities from other airports in Oregon and the Northwest.

There is no question that PDX in fact is the second largest hub of the carrier, behind only SEA.
bb

I think they're point was asking whether or not PDX is considered a hub or a focus city. I get the feeling that Alaska has one hub, SEA, and then has a bunch of focus cities scattered across the west coast (ANC, PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SAN).

I can't believe we're discussing exactly what status PDX has with AAG but here's some more data about daily departures in the network from an AAG presentation in Sept:

SEA has ~300 daily AAG departures;
PDX has ~130
SFO has ~90
LAX has ~80
ANC & SAN have ~45 and
SJC has ~40

bb

SANFan wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

There is no question that PDX in fact is the second largest hub of the carrier, behind only SEA.
bb

I think they're point was asking whether or not PDX is considered a hub or a focus city. I get the feeling that Alaska has one hub, SEA, and then has a bunch of focus cities scattered across the west coast (ANC, PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SAN).

I can't believe we're discussing exactly what status PDX has with AAG but here's some more data about daily departures in the network from an AAG presentation in Sept:

SEA has ~300 daily AAG departures;
PDX has ~130
SFO has ~90
LAX has ~80
ANC & SAN have ~45 and
SJC has ~40

bb

I'm not doubting that Alaska's presence at PDX is large, all I meant by my previous statement is that SEA is their largest hub, but at the same time, SEA has more than double of daily departures than PDX does. PDX is the largest focus city, while SEA is the main hub. That's just my take on it.

What exactly is the cutoff point when a focus city becomes a hub?

lhpdx wrote:

What exactly is the cutoff point when a focus city becomes a hub?

It’s always somewhat arbitrary but the fact that AS routes connections over PDX and calls it a hub should meet the minimum criteria

FA9295 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

JetBlue must be doing the worst.

Indeed. I honestly thought that they were going to ax the route in their latest update, but it appears to be safe for now...
From a non-biased perspective though, I honestly think JetBlue should just end the route. It's clearly losing money for them, and the plane could probably make more money for them somewhere else...

Here is from Q2
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
JFKPDX 2454 B6 23601 204.18 203.85 305.64 99.67% 150.0 87.41% 178.19 0.0726
JFKPDX 2454 AS 25643 219.02 215.81 334.97 97.31% 162.2 88.82% 191.68 0.0781
JFKPDX 2454 DL 52059 278.03 274.04 341.49 94.08% 172.1 89.50% 245.26 0.0999

Not good numbers for B6, but the average fares is only about 6% less than AS and LF looks reasonable. The problem is that PDX is such a seasonable market. They are probably loosing a lot of money in Q1, but other quarters are just slightly under water.

You also have to remember that B6 has the worst schedule on JFK-PDX out of all the airlines, which means it's using a very low demand slot going out of JFK and coming in, so it's not taking away opportunity from more profitable flying. And the aircraft coming in with RON at PDX and the flight coming back is a redeye. So the cost for B6 is really low here. And it's still performing better than JFK-RNO/ABQ and on par with JFK-OAK. It serves a large area with no alternatives near by. Which is to say they are not cutting here and this route will stay a bloodbath for a while.

Also in a couple of years, they will probably switch this to A220, which would be a far better fit here than A320. I can't imagine them not giving A220 a chance on a route like this.

So the A220 has transcon range?

My lord, I didn't realize the B6 JFK-PDX leaves at 8:51pm now to arrive at midnight in PDX. It's amazing they get even a fare of $204. It arrives so late that it doesn't operate as the red-eye going back. The aircraft goes to LGB in the morning, and an LGB-PDX arrives at 851p to become the redeye.

AirFiero wrote:

So the A220 has transcon range?

BT (Air Baltic) uses it 3x a week on RIX-ALA (Riga to Almaty). Almost exactly the same distance as PDX-JFK. I wouldn't bank on it making it westbound in the winter though.

BT is about to start RIX-AUH at 2729 miles later in October.

For selfish reasons, but I also think it makes some business sense, I'd love to see SCK and SLE. I relocated to the Central Valley and I am about 1.5 to 3 hrs to any airport (FAT,SMF,OAK,SJC) but traffic us unpredictable so I leave really early for my flight - and often times, it has taken longer than I expected. Similarly, traffic between PDX and Salem is unpredictable and getting worse and it can take me and my employees 2 hours plus depending on time of day. I think SCK to LAX and SEA/PDX could be successful and SLE to SEA and SFO/SJC are possible. SCK has the grant and Salem is once again beginning to push for commercial service. THese seems like pretty good Q400 routes.

As related to one of AS's recently announced new routes, I just found that WN has increased their SAN-ELP service to DAILY beginning on Jan 7, 2019! This is probably one of the least surprising competitive moves by WN this year. I found it by searching thru the skeds; no announcement of any kind has been seen.

WN's current sked, in place since they began re-flying the route in March of this year, is Sunday-only service. AS announced daily SAN-ELP service about 2 weeks ago. It appears that WN will fly 2x on Sundays, + once/day on the other 6 days.

I checked and did not find any evidence of WN starting ELP-SEA service on their open skeds. This is not surprising to me either. Maybe in the summer sked?

bb

Awesome news for ELP folks. WN definitely has the upper hand on this route but will need to fill a lot more seats. They have coonections on both ends though so that shouldn’t be too difficult.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Awesome news for ELP folks. WN definitely has the upper hand on this route but will need to fill a lot more seats. They have coonections on both ends though so that shouldn’t be too difficult.

And of further interest to me is that the SAN-ELP flight(s) are in the evening (6pm-ish); could there be a possible Hawaii-SAN-ELP connection in our future? AND It looks like the plane will RON in ELP and return to SAN, arriving here ~8:30am, which could easily tie into SAN-Hawaii skeds as well...!

I continue to thinkk AS's EMJ is the ideal airplane for the market (as it exists right now) but with at least 2 flights per day starting next year, the route could, how should I put this, really take off!

bb