• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 17
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:32 pm

jbpdx wrote:
Kind of confusing, is CVG really a hub or a focus city? I thought RDU was a hub too, which is what threw me off at first. The A220 would work for CVG-PDX, and couldn’t Delta squeeze out JetBlue by adding BOS? That would leave CDG as the only Delta hub not linked to PDX.
Should Delta look at PDX-MIA since they don’t do MIA-SEA? Direct plane MIA-PDX-HND?


According to wikipedia, CVG was a hub (and had been served daily during and after DL's PDX-Asia hub/experiment. There were apparently over 670 daily flights at its peak in 2005, including ANC, HNL, AMS, BRU, FRA, LHR, MUC, CDG, FCO, ZRH; PEK and NRT were planned. Bankruptcy ended most of the "hub hub." They now serve some 34 destinations, including CDG (Mostly GE connections). In fact, the only two DL flights from SEA that AS doesn't serve are JAC and CVG - so no doubt PDX could work, and it seems like the A220 would be perfect.

DL seems to be keen on the more than a focus city, less than a hub, at least in the mind of the legacies. Seems to be the case at CVG/AUS/RDU/BOS all at some stage of more than just ATL/SLC/JFK/LAX/MSP/DTW, etc.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5516
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:23 am

jbpdx wrote:
Kind of confusing, is CVG really a hub or a focus city? I thought RDU was a hub too, which is what threw me off at first. The A220 would work for CVG-PDX, and couldn’t Delta squeeze out JetBlue by adding BOS? That would leave CDG as the only Delta hub not linked to PDX.
Should Delta look at PDX-MIA since they don’t do MIA-SEA? Direct plane MIA-PDX-HND?


The way I see it is, DL had the big hub at CVG ( honestly truly very nice to fly PDX-CVG in an MD-11 in J) the hub was dismantled as all carriers streamlined when our economy tanked in 2008.

CVG had some lucrative business ties that DL was willing to retain, by retaining service to key cities. This has allowed DL to capture the corporate market & retain enough of a presence to make them a top dog there. But as with all good hubs, there needs to be a healthy flow of both O/D & connections. Too bad, like MEM, I preferred using the smaller DL hubs to get where I was going, whenever possible. CVG was another quick & easy hub to navigate.
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777-2/3, DC8, DC9, MD80/2/7/8, D10-1/3/4, M11, L10-2/5, A300/310/319/320
AA AC AQ BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HG HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WN WP YS 8M
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:54 pm

Apologies if it's been discussed already, but back in January, Frontier made it official that they were not resuming PDX-CLE next year: https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019 ... tland.html

Quoted from the article:
The sole summer reduction from Cleveland is a significant one: nonstop service to Portland, Oregon will not return this summer. Frontier is the only airline flying between Cleveland and Portland.

Shurz said that while peak travel weeks in mid-summer had full planes to Portland, late spring and late summer flights didn’t have high enough occupancy. He did not rule out a return to Portland, but he said he believes there is currently more demand for low-cost service to San Francisco and Seattle.


It looks like the planes were full during the peak summer season (July and early August), while they were not full during late spring (May through early June) and late summer (August through early September). Kind of shows how the ULCC model doesn't really fit the PDX market very well. I think this is attributed to the fact that low-cost flyers typically fly out during the summer, when school is out and the weather is much nicer; while loyal flyers (such as those to legacy airlines like AS and DL) have the local business market on their side, allowing them to continue flying to many destinations during the off-season winter months.

But good for SY in trying to take a stab at the Portland market, especially to popular unserved destinations that Alaska doesn't currently fly to, such as Nashville, San Antonio, and St. Louis. Hopefully they continue to be successful at our great airport and add more flights in the future. I can't see any other airline resuming PDX-CLE any time soon except for SY.
 
User avatar
rosecityspotter
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:47 pm

AS737MAX wrote:
Has anyone booked on PAE flights actually gotten rebooked or heard back from AS yet? I've only gotten the "You will be confirmed on the closest available Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) flight." email.


My buddy had his flight rebooked to SEA instead of PAE for the first weekend in March, but he’s flying to LAS the next week as well and that flight was no rebooked.
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:57 pm

rosecityspotter wrote:
AS737MAX wrote:
Has anyone booked on PAE flights actually gotten rebooked or heard back from AS yet? I've only gotten the "You will be confirmed on the closest available Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) flight." email.


My buddy had his flight rebooked to SEA instead of PAE for the first weekend in March, but he’s flying to LAS the next week as well and that flight was no rebooked.


Interesting. Must have just been for the flights prior to the moved-back start date. I was set to fly it 20FEB, rebooked through Seattle. Booked another ticket to PAE for later in April.
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:04 pm

FA9295 wrote:
Apologies if it's been discussed already, but back in January, Frontier made it official that they were not resuming PDX-CLE next year: https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019 ... tland.html

Quoted from the article:
The sole summer reduction from Cleveland is a significant one: nonstop service to Portland, Oregon will not return this summer. Frontier is the only airline flying between Cleveland and Portland.

Shurz said that while peak travel weeks in mid-summer had full planes to Portland, late spring and late summer flights didn’t have high enough occupancy. He did not rule out a return to Portland, but he said he believes there is currently more demand for low-cost service to San Francisco and Seattle.


It looks like the planes were full during the peak summer season (July and early August), while they were not full during late spring (May through early June) and late summer (August through early September). Kind of shows how the ULCC model doesn't really fit the PDX market very well. I think this is attributed to the fact that low-cost flyers typically fly out during the summer, when school is out and the weather is much nicer; while loyal flyers (such as those to legacy airlines like AS and DL) have the local business market on their side, allowing them to continue flying to many destinations during the off-season winter months.

But good for SY in trying to take a stab at the Portland market, especially to popular unserved destinations that Alaska doesn't currently fly to, such as Nashville, San Antonio, and St. Louis. Hopefully they continue to be successful at our great airport and add more flights in the future. I can't see any other airline resuming PDX-CLE any time soon except for SY.


Good to see you stumping for PDX in the other airport threads! Already booked BNA and looking to do STL and SAT to try and add the nonstops not knowing if they'll be back next season. We've seen that there's been a case to try, as F9 did do CLE/AUS/PHX/STL +UA served CLE in the summer of 2013. Wouldn't expect UA back on it given the near complete PNW drawdown.

AS flies a lot of other nonstops from SEA, but you gotta get on the 5/6/7am seattle shuttles and the ticket price is exorbitantly high.
 
User avatar
jbpdx
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:37 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:23 pm

Frontier should just pull out of PDX. Their paltry one flight a day to Denver service wouldn’t be missed. (The worst flight I’ve ever been on was on Frontier from Denver to Portland in 2011.) Delta adding PDX-CVG would be a good replacement.
Next: AS PDX-OGG-PDX
DL PDX-LHR-PDX
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:43 pm

jbpdx wrote:
Frontier should just pull out of PDX. Their paltry one flight a day to Denver service wouldn’t be missed. (The worst flight I’ve ever been on was on Frontier from Denver to Portland in 2011.) Delta adding PDX-CVG would be a good replacement.

Yeah, their schedule is certainly weird. IDK who would want to fly out of DEN at 12:55 AM to arrive there at 4:20 AM. It might be good for onward connections, but as an O&D flight, that's certainly not very appealing. Luckily they've been sparsely adding some more frequencies to DEN departing PDX at various times of the day. So sometimes their PDX-DEN schedule is actually around 10-11x weekly. I flew them to DEN back when they were actually a decent airline. But now? No thanks. I'll stick with UA if I ever have to get to DEN.

I'm pretty sure I calculated the average LF% for Frontier's PDX-CLE flight a while ago, I want to say it was around 83-85% full...
 
User avatar
bigfoot0503
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:16 pm

It would appear that with all of the recent discussions pertaining to Delta's PDX-HND route filing with the DOT that we missed a milestone last week (02-21-2019). On that date the construction crews at the PDX Concourse E extension project reached the significant step of placing the last beam atop the extended concourse structure.

An article from the Port of Portland highlights the activity and following information; "The 830-foot concourse extension will give travelers six new comfortable gates when it opens in June 2020. Southwest Airlines will move into the new space. The Concourse E extension will provide travelers and employees more comfortable places to sit, 10 new local restaurants and shops with the same prices as in the city, more places to charge laptops and cell phones, and great views of Mount Hood and the Columbia River".

Very exciting to see, can't wait until the summer of 2020...great to see PDX always innovating and growing!

https://flypdx.com/Newsroom/PDX-workers ... -extension
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:24 pm

bigfoot0503 wrote:
It would appear that with all of the recent discussions pertaining to Delta's PDX-HND route filing with the DOT that we missed a milestone last week (02-21-2019). On that date the construction crews at the PDX Concourse E extension project reached the significant step of placing the last beam atop the extended concourse structure.

An article from the Port of Portland highlights the activity and following information; "The 830-foot concourse extension will give travelers six new comfortable gates when it opens in June 2020. Southwest Airlines will move into the new space. The Concourse E extension will provide travelers and employees more comfortable places to sit, 10 new local restaurants and shops with the same prices as in the city, more places to charge laptops and cell phones, and great views of Mount Hood and the Columbia River".

Very exciting to see, can't wait until the summer of 2020...great to see PDX always innovating and growing!

https://flypdx.com/Newsroom/PDX-workers ... -extension

Glad to see that this is coming along well. 10 new local restaurants and shops added too, that's also great news. If Southwest will move their operations there, then will AS retain WN's current gates? I think UA will likely stay in the older part of concourse E.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5516
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:38 pm

bigfoot0503 wrote:
It would appear that with all of the recent discussions pertaining to Delta's PDX-HND route filing with the DOT that we missed a milestone last week (02-21-2019). On that date the construction crews at the PDX Concourse E extension project reached the significant step of placing the last beam atop the extended concourse structure.

An article from the Port of Portland highlights the activity and following information; "The 830-foot concourse extension will give travelers six new comfortable gates when it opens in June 2020. Southwest Airlines will move into the new space. The Concourse E extension will provide travelers and employees more comfortable places to sit, 10 new local restaurants and shops with the same prices as in the city, more places to charge laptops and cell phones, and great views of Mount Hood and the Columbia River".

Very exciting to see, can't wait until the summer of 2020...great to see PDX always innovating and growing!

https://flypdx.com/Newsroom/PDX-workers ... -extension


You are correct, I haven’t thought about the projects here in a quick minute. Thanks for the link, I am biased, I just love our PDX.
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777-2/3, DC8, DC9, MD80/2/7/8, D10-1/3/4, M11, L10-2/5, A300/310/319/320
AA AC AQ BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HG HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WN WP YS 8M
 
User avatar
jbpdx
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:37 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:00 pm

PDX Portland International Airport
January 2019 passenger traffic report

Domestic 1,337,560 +5.6%
International 51,599 -7.9%
Total 1,389,159 +5%

International drop was due to Aeromexico abruptly abandoning PDX.

Cathay Pacific Cargo +17%
Next: AS PDX-OGG-PDX
DL PDX-LHR-PDX
 
ANA787
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:02 pm

jbpdx wrote:
International drop was due to Aeromexico abruptly abandoning PDX.


Wouldn't be surprised to see AM return to PDX- less than daily in the off season and then back to daily in the high seasons. AM carried 84,057 passengers in 2018 at PDX.
 
ANA787
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:07 pm

Looks like United will continue to pursue the PDX hanger according to this quote

https://hub.united.com/new-maintenance-united-airlines-at-lax-2630296996.html

"United is also moving into a new hangar in Portland, Oregon and working with the City of Chicago to create a new hangar as part of the O'Hare Modernization Program."
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:10 am

FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0016

Delta’s Portland and Honolulu Proposals, If Granted, Will Squander Scarce Haneda Slot-Pairs While Preventing Competition from Other Carriers

Due to the limited number of Haneda slot-pairs available and the need for competition from American, Delta should not be granted excess slot-pairs to launch Haneda services at PDX and HNL. Delta’s proposed PDX-HND and HNL-HND services will expand Tokyo service at gateways where it will not maximize public benefits, while depriving other communities of Haneda service that need it greatly. Moreover, with negligible connectivity, Delta’s proposals will do little to improve Haneda access for U.S. passengers. Rejecting American’s proposed Haneda services to allow Delta to launch service in Portland or Honolulu will only harm competition in the continental United States.

Based on Portland’s Small Local Demand and Extremely Limited Connectivity, Delta’s PDX-HND Proposal Offers Few Benefits and May Not Be Sustainable

Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service would give Delta Haneda service at three West Coast gateways, including two in the Pacific Northwest: LAX, SEA, and PDX. Few passengers would benefit from PDX-HND service. Delta’s application states that Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consists of just 63 passengers daily each way. Las Vegas - Tokyo O&D traffic, by contrast, consists of nearly twice as many passengers daily each way. Moreover, Delta offers no meaningful connectivity at Portland: all of its listed connections are to its U.S. hubs, most of which will have nonstop Haneda service should Delta’s first three proposals be awarded. Delta’s own connecting tables show that Portland residents will have convenient access to Tokyo via Delta’s SEA-HND service; layovers at SEA in both directions will be under 90 minutes.

Accordingly, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service is a textbook example of a proposal that does not merit selection. When the Department rejected Delta’s LAX - Beijing (PEK) proposal in 2016, for instance, the Department reasoned that “all of the connecting points Delta proposes already have connecting service to Beijing on Delta over Seattle.” The same is true here: all of Delta’s Portland connecting points also have connections via Seattle, and most will have nonstop Haneda service as well. Because Portland is sandwiched between two West Coast gateways with Haneda service via Delta, has smaller local demand, and has even smaller, duplicative connectivity, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service should not be selected.

Moreover, passenger demand may not even be sufficient to sustain its PDX-HND proposal on a daily, year-round basis. Delta currently offers PDX-NRT service just five times weekly for most of the year. More than 40 percent of the passengers on this service are not Tokyo O&D travelers, and connect to destinations served by Delta beyond Narita. Should Delta’s flight be moved to Haneda and be expanded to year-round daily, Delta will lose passengers while increasing seats. With Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consisting of just 63 passengers daily each way and Delta’s minimal, duplicative connectivity, there is no basis to believe that Delta’s current beyond- Narita connecting passengers will be replaced by a sufficient number of Tokyo O&D travelers.

Without an unrealistic surge in demand for Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service, it is exposed to the same seasonal performance variations that afflicted Delta’s failed SEA-HND service four years ago. When Delta suspended its SEA-HND service for the 2014 winter traffic season, Delta claimed that it was “was commercially necessary to make seasonal reductions” due to poor winter demand. In defending its actions, Delta demonstrated that “Seattle–Tokyo winter demand is more seasonal than other Haneda gateways.” Specifically, “Seattle – Tokyo winter demand is 35% less than in summer months.” “Delta’s expanding Seattle hub network will work to offset these seasonal variations in the future,” Delta told the Department. As Delta explained, increasing its Seattle connections “will provide the necessary feed needed to make the Seattle- Haneda service a continued success.”

By proposing to launch daily year-round PDX-HND service, Delta ignores the lessons of its failure in Seattle. Portland is a much smaller local market for Tokyo service, as shown in Delta’s exhibits, and it does not currently sustain year-round Tokyo service today. Based on the weaker demand for Tokyo service in the Pacific Northwest during the winter, as previously described by Delta, Delta only operates its PDX-NRT service five times weekly during the winter season and into May. And Delta’s connectivity at PDX is far worse than its connectivity at SEA was in 2014, when it was unable to sustain SEA-HND service. The cloud of uncertainty as to whether Delta can sustain PDX-HND service on a daily, year-round basis further weakens any case for awarding it.
Last edited by AS737MAX on Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:16 am

Here's what UA had to say

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0009

Delta’s Proposals to Offer Service to Haneda from Seattle, Detroit, Atlanta, and Portland Pale in Comparison to United’s Proposals

Delta’s proposal is inferior to United’s in several respects. First, United’s first-priority proposal is stronger because it involves larger cities than Delta’s proposal. As United explained in its Application, Newark/New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., are the first, third, and sixth largest metropolitan areas in the United States, respectively, with 20.1 million, 9.5 million, and 6.1 million people. (See United Application, Exhibit UA-110). All three are larger than any of the cities from which Delta is proposing to offer service.

Second, United’s proposed U.S. mainland-Haneda routes are larger than those proposed by Delta. Newark/New York City and Los Angeles-Tokyo are larger than all routes proposed by Delta. (See Exhibits UA-A133 and UA-A136) Chicago and Washington, D.C. are larger than Detroit, Portland, and Atlanta. (See Exhibits UA-A134 and UA-A135) Houston is larger than Atlanta. (See Exhibit UA-A137).

Finally, United also proposes to add almost 350,000 annual seats to Tokyo, which is more than four times Delta’s proposal of just 76,650. (See Exhibit UA-A113). United also proposes to add approximately 44,000 annual business class seats to Tokyo, which is more than triple Delta’s proposal of 12,775. (See Exhibit UA-A114)

--

Hawaiian's response did not make any mention of PDX.
 
User avatar
bigfoot0503
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:03 am

AS737MAX wrote:
FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0016

Delta’s Portland and Honolulu Proposals, If Granted, Will Squander Scarce Haneda Slot-Pairs While Preventing Competition from Other Carriers

Due to the limited number of Haneda slot-pairs available and the need for competition from American, Delta should not be granted excess slot-pairs to launch Haneda services at PDX and HNL. Delta’s proposed PDX-HND and HNL-HND services will expand Tokyo service at gateways where it will not maximize public benefits, while depriving other communities of Haneda service that need it greatly. Moreover, with negligible connectivity, Delta’s proposals will do little to improve Haneda access for U.S. passengers. Rejecting American’s proposed Haneda services to allow Delta to launch service in Portland or Honolulu will only harm competition in the continental United States.

Based on Portland’s Small Local Demand and Extremely Limited Connectivity, Delta’s PDX-HND Proposal Offers Few Benefits and May Not Be Sustainable

Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service would give Delta Haneda service at three West Coast gateways, including two in the Pacific Northwest: LAX, SEA, and PDX. Few passengers would benefit from PDX-HND service. Delta’s application states that Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consists of just 63 passengers daily each way. Las Vegas - Tokyo O&D traffic, by contrast, consists of nearly twice as many passengers daily each way. Moreover, Delta offers no meaningful connectivity at Portland: all of its listed connections are to its U.S. hubs, most of which will have nonstop Haneda service should Delta’s first three proposals be awarded. Delta’s own connecting tables show that Portland residents will have convenient access to Tokyo via Delta’s SEA-HND service; layovers at SEA in both directions will be under 90 minutes.

Accordingly, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service is a textbook example of a proposal that does not merit selection. When the Department rejected Delta’s LAX - Beijing (PEK) proposal in 2016, for instance, the Department reasoned that “all of the connecting points Delta proposes already have connecting service to Beijing on Delta over Seattle.” The same is true here: all of Delta’s Portland connecting points also have connections via Seattle, and most will have nonstop Haneda service as well. Because Portland is sandwiched between two West Coast gateways with Haneda service via Delta, has smaller local demand, and has even smaller, duplicative connectivity, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service should not be selected.

Moreover, passenger demand may not even be sufficient to sustain its PDX-HND proposal on a daily, year-round basis. Delta currently offers PDX-NRT service just five times weekly for most of the year. More than 40 percent of the passengers on this service are not Tokyo O&D travelers, and connect to destinations served by Delta beyond Narita. Should Delta’s flight be moved to Haneda and be expanded to year-round daily, Delta will lose passengers while increasing seats. With Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consisting of just 63 passengers daily each way and Delta’s minimal, duplicative connectivity, there is no basis to believe that Delta’s current beyond- Narita connecting passengers will be replaced by a sufficient number of Tokyo O&D travelers.

Without an unrealistic surge in demand for Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service, it is exposed to the same seasonal performance variations that afflicted Delta’s failed SEA-HND service four years ago. When Delta suspended its SEA-HND service for the 2014 winter traffic season, Delta claimed that it was “was commercially necessary to make seasonal reductions” due to poor winter demand. In defending its actions, Delta demonstrated that “Seattle–Tokyo winter demand is more seasonal than other Haneda gateways.” Specifically, “Seattle – Tokyo winter demand is 35% less than in summer months.” “Delta’s expanding Seattle hub network will work to offset these seasonal variations in the future,” Delta told the Department. As Delta explained, increasing its Seattle connections “will provide the necessary feed needed to make the Seattle- Haneda service a continued success.”

By proposing to launch daily year-round PDX-HND service, Delta ignores the lessons of its failure in Seattle. Portland is a much smaller local market for Tokyo service, as shown in Delta’s exhibits, and it does not currently sustain year-round Tokyo service today. Based on the weaker demand for Tokyo service in the Pacific Northwest during the winter, as previously described by Delta, Delta only operates its PDX-NRT service five times weekly during the winter season and into May. And Delta’s connectivity at PDX is far worse than its connectivity at SEA was in 2014, when it was unable to sustain SEA-HND service. The cloud of uncertainty as to whether Delta can sustain PDX-HND service on a daily, year-round basis further weakens any case for awarding it.


I'm not really certain how to address this statement by American. On one hand I found myself "put-off" by their reasoning and frankly questioning not only their logic but the credibility of their statements. This all coming from a carrier (American) who as far back as I can recall has done NOTHING to nurture and grow their presence in Portland.
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:25 am

bigfoot0503 wrote:
AS737MAX wrote:
FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0016

Delta’s Portland and Honolulu Proposals, If Granted, Will Squander Scarce Haneda Slot-Pairs While Preventing Competition from Other Carriers

Due to the limited number of Haneda slot-pairs available and the need for competition from American, Delta should not be granted excess slot-pairs to launch Haneda services at PDX and HNL. Delta’s proposed PDX-HND and HNL-HND services will expand Tokyo service at gateways where it will not maximize public benefits, while depriving other communities of Haneda service that need it greatly. Moreover, with negligible connectivity, Delta’s proposals will do little to improve Haneda access for U.S. passengers. Rejecting American’s proposed Haneda services to allow Delta to launch service in Portland or Honolulu will only harm competition in the continental United States.

Based on Portland’s Small Local Demand and Extremely Limited Connectivity, Delta’s PDX-HND Proposal Offers Few Benefits and May Not Be Sustainable

Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service would give Delta Haneda service at three West Coast gateways, including two in the Pacific Northwest: LAX, SEA, and PDX. Few passengers would benefit from PDX-HND service. Delta’s application states that Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consists of just 63 passengers daily each way. Las Vegas - Tokyo O&D traffic, by contrast, consists of nearly twice as many passengers daily each way. Moreover, Delta offers no meaningful connectivity at Portland: all of its listed connections are to its U.S. hubs, most of which will have nonstop Haneda service should Delta’s first three proposals be awarded. Delta’s own connecting tables show that Portland residents will have convenient access to Tokyo via Delta’s SEA-HND service; layovers at SEA in both directions will be under 90 minutes.

Accordingly, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service is a textbook example of a proposal that does not merit selection. When the Department rejected Delta’s LAX - Beijing (PEK) proposal in 2016, for instance, the Department reasoned that “all of the connecting points Delta proposes already have connecting service to Beijing on Delta over Seattle.” The same is true here: all of Delta’s Portland connecting points also have connections via Seattle, and most will have nonstop Haneda service as well. Because Portland is sandwiched between two West Coast gateways with Haneda service via Delta, has smaller local demand, and has even smaller, duplicative connectivity, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service should not be selected.

Moreover, passenger demand may not even be sufficient to sustain its PDX-HND proposal on a daily, year-round basis. Delta currently offers PDX-NRT service just five times weekly for most of the year. More than 40 percent of the passengers on this service are not Tokyo O&D travelers, and connect to destinations served by Delta beyond Narita. Should Delta’s flight be moved to Haneda and be expanded to year-round daily, Delta will lose passengers while increasing seats. With Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consisting of just 63 passengers daily each way and Delta’s minimal, duplicative connectivity, there is no basis to believe that Delta’s current beyond- Narita connecting passengers will be replaced by a sufficient number of Tokyo O&D travelers.

Without an unrealistic surge in demand for Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service, it is exposed to the same seasonal performance variations that afflicted Delta’s failed SEA-HND service four years ago. When Delta suspended its SEA-HND service for the 2014 winter traffic season, Delta claimed that it was “was commercially necessary to make seasonal reductions” due to poor winter demand. In defending its actions, Delta demonstrated that “Seattle–Tokyo winter demand is more seasonal than other Haneda gateways.” Specifically, “Seattle – Tokyo winter demand is 35% less than in summer months.” “Delta’s expanding Seattle hub network will work to offset these seasonal variations in the future,” Delta told the Department. As Delta explained, increasing its Seattle connections “will provide the necessary feed needed to make the Seattle- Haneda service a continued success.”

By proposing to launch daily year-round PDX-HND service, Delta ignores the lessons of its failure in Seattle. Portland is a much smaller local market for Tokyo service, as shown in Delta’s exhibits, and it does not currently sustain year-round Tokyo service today. Based on the weaker demand for Tokyo service in the Pacific Northwest during the winter, as previously described by Delta, Delta only operates its PDX-NRT service five times weekly during the winter season and into May. And Delta’s connectivity at PDX is far worse than its connectivity at SEA was in 2014, when it was unable to sustain SEA-HND service. The cloud of uncertainty as to whether Delta can sustain PDX-HND service on a daily, year-round basis further weakens any case for awarding it.


I'm not really certain how to address this statement by American. On one hand I found myself "put-off" by their reasoning and frankly questioning not only their logic but the credibility of their statements. This all coming from a carrier (American) who as far back as I can recall has done NOTHING to nurture and grow their presence in Portland.


You're not wrong, and from reading the other responses, AA is the only carrier that singled out particular routes that were bid on by other carriers. AA isn't particularly worried about how they do here, I think, and I'm not sure if you saw the google sheet I posted on the previous page, but from 2004-2015, AA only served DFW, and ORD was seasonal. It seems that the spread of the US hub network has still really stretched them thin. Surprised they still even offer PHL and CLT at all. AS serves PHL seasonally, and EWR/JFK year round. CLT has been a tough one for AA..
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:56 am

AS737MAX wrote:
FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0016

Delta’s Portland and Honolulu Proposals, If Granted, Will Squander Scarce Haneda Slot-Pairs While Preventing Competition from Other Carriers

Due to the limited number of Haneda slot-pairs available and the need for competition from American, Delta should not be granted excess slot-pairs to launch Haneda services at PDX and HNL. Delta’s proposed PDX-HND and HNL-HND services will expand Tokyo service at gateways where it will not maximize public benefits, while depriving other communities of Haneda service that need it greatly. Moreover, with negligible connectivity, Delta’s proposals will do little to improve Haneda access for U.S. passengers. Rejecting American’s proposed Haneda services to allow Delta to launch service in Portland or Honolulu will only harm competition in the continental United States.

Based on Portland’s Small Local Demand and Extremely Limited Connectivity, Delta’s PDX-HND Proposal Offers Few Benefits and May Not Be Sustainable

Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service would give Delta Haneda service at three West Coast gateways, including two in the Pacific Northwest: LAX, SEA, and PDX. Few passengers would benefit from PDX-HND service. Delta’s application states that Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consists of just 63 passengers daily each way. Las Vegas - Tokyo O&D traffic, by contrast, consists of nearly twice as many passengers daily each way. Moreover, Delta offers no meaningful connectivity at Portland: all of its listed connections are to its U.S. hubs, most of which will have nonstop Haneda service should Delta’s first three proposals be awarded. Delta’s own connecting tables show that Portland residents will have convenient access to Tokyo via Delta’s SEA-HND service; layovers at SEA in both directions will be under 90 minutes.

Accordingly, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service is a textbook example of a proposal that does not merit selection. When the Department rejected Delta’s LAX - Beijing (PEK) proposal in 2016, for instance, the Department reasoned that “all of the connecting points Delta proposes already have connecting service to Beijing on Delta over Seattle.” The same is true here: all of Delta’s Portland connecting points also have connections via Seattle, and most will have nonstop Haneda service as well. Because Portland is sandwiched between two West Coast gateways with Haneda service via Delta, has smaller local demand, and has even smaller, duplicative connectivity, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service should not be selected.

Moreover, passenger demand may not even be sufficient to sustain its PDX-HND proposal on a daily, year-round basis. Delta currently offers PDX-NRT service just five times weekly for most of the year. More than 40 percent of the passengers on this service are not Tokyo O&D travelers, and connect to destinations served by Delta beyond Narita. Should Delta’s flight be moved to Haneda and be expanded to year-round daily, Delta will lose passengers while increasing seats. With Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consisting of just 63 passengers daily each way and Delta’s minimal, duplicative connectivity, there is no basis to believe that Delta’s current beyond- Narita connecting passengers will be replaced by a sufficient number of Tokyo O&D travelers.

Without an unrealistic surge in demand for Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service, it is exposed to the same seasonal performance variations that afflicted Delta’s failed SEA-HND service four years ago. When Delta suspended its SEA-HND service for the 2014 winter traffic season, Delta claimed that it was “was commercially necessary to make seasonal reductions” due to poor winter demand. In defending its actions, Delta demonstrated that “Seattle–Tokyo winter demand is more seasonal than other Haneda gateways.” Specifically, “Seattle – Tokyo winter demand is 35% less than in summer months.” “Delta’s expanding Seattle hub network will work to offset these seasonal variations in the future,” Delta told the Department. As Delta explained, increasing its Seattle connections “will provide the necessary feed needed to make the Seattle- Haneda service a continued success.”

By proposing to launch daily year-round PDX-HND service, Delta ignores the lessons of its failure in Seattle. Portland is a much smaller local market for Tokyo service, as shown in Delta’s exhibits, and it does not currently sustain year-round Tokyo service today. Based on the weaker demand for Tokyo service in the Pacific Northwest during the winter, as previously described by Delta, Delta only operates its PDX-NRT service five times weekly during the winter season and into May. And Delta’s connectivity at PDX is far worse than its connectivity at SEA was in 2014, when it was unable to sustain SEA-HND service. The cloud of uncertainty as to whether Delta can sustain PDX-HND service on a daily, year-round basis further weakens any case for awarding it.

AS737MAX, thank you for posting this here. I was going to do it myself but never got around to it.

Here is my take on it,
AA knows that their proposed "odd" route is LAS-HND. They have this route as their 4th priority route (if i recall correctly). Delta's "odd" route would be PDX-HND, also their 4th priority route (by "odd", I mean a non-hub route that is unique within their route network and at a lower priority position). Delta has HNL-HND as well but at a lower priority position than PDX-HND is placed at. In this case, LAS-HND and PDX-HND are pretty much squared up against each other. I personally think that both of these routes will make the cut because they both have strong local markets. AA's argument is that LAS-HND has a significantly higher overall PDEW than PDX-HND does. DL's argument is that LAS-HND has a much higher point-of-sale figure in Japan than it does in the United States, meaning that more passengers are going to originate from Japan to Las Vegas than the other way around. They also state that while LAS-HND will mostly consist of leisure traffic, PDX-HND will have a much higher business market, likely from Nike and other Fortune 500 companies that DL listed on their application. Funny enough though, both AA and DL flew LAS-NRT during CES. So there's also a business-market argued for LAS-HND as well.

Overall, I see Delta and United both getting 4 slots, with American getting 3 and Hawaiian getting 1:
AA: DFW #1, LAX, LAS
DL: SEA, DTW, ATL, PDX
UA: EWR, ORD, IAD, LAX
HA: HNL #1

I also mentioned this on the other thread but I'll go ahead and post it here as well: If the DoT decides to "evenly" split up the slots between the four carriers, that would mean that each of them gets 3 slots, which means that PDX does not end up making the cut. There is a possibility for this, if the DoT wants to distribute the slots "evenly" amongst the four carriers, but I highly doubt that HA will be awarded 3 extra HND-HNL slots on top of the 2 that they already have. In fact, I don't think DL will get any of the HNL-HND routes that they applied for at all.

bigfoot0503 wrote:
I'm not really certain how to address this statement by American. On one hand I found myself "put-off" by their reasoning and frankly questioning not only their logic but the credibility of their statements. This all coming from a carrier (American) who as far back as I can recall has done NOTHING to nurture and grow their presence in Portland.

bigfoot0503, I agree with you 100%. The last addition from AA at PDX was a second daily CLT flight, which has been struggling for a long time. It was reduced to 4x weekly, then 3x weekly, and then they suspended the flight altogether until early June. Not to mention that their currently running PDX-CLT flight only operates 6x weekly now (no CLT flights at all on Saturdays until early May). Before that, they added 3x daily PDX-LAX on their E175s. They have recently added a fourth daily flight on this route. Also something to note, I think their PDX-DFW frequencies have been slowly decreasing overtime as well, however this may be because they have slowly upgraded their jets on this route overtime from MD-80s to Boeing 737-800s, and now to Airbus A321s. What I find interesting, is that they fly to Charlotte year-round but only seasonally to Philadelphia and not to Miami at all. I would think that PDX-MIA/PHL would have higher PDEW numbers than PDX-CLT does, but I could be wrong. With strong O&D traffic alongside connecting traffic, I think both routes would do very well year-round. And if PDX-CLT is struggling that much, maybe they need to pull out of that route altogether and give PDX-PHL/MIA a try instead. With that being said, I think at one point I heard that CLT was their second most profitable hub, with DFW being number one.
 
PDX757
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:01 am

Pardon my ignorance, but what advantage does HND have over NRT? I realize HND is quite a bit closer to Tokyo itself, and it seems like DL would be in pretty much the same position as they are now without a Japanese partner.
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 am

FA9295 wrote:
AS737MAX wrote:
FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0016

Delta’s Portland and Honolulu Proposals, If Granted, Will Squander Scarce Haneda Slot-Pairs While Preventing Competition from Other Carriers

Due to the limited number of Haneda slot-pairs available and the need for competition from American, Delta should not be granted excess slot-pairs to launch Haneda services at PDX and HNL. Delta’s proposed PDX-HND and HNL-HND services will expand Tokyo service at gateways where it will not maximize public benefits, while depriving other communities of Haneda service that need it greatly. Moreover, with negligible connectivity, Delta’s proposals will do little to improve Haneda access for U.S. passengers. Rejecting American’s proposed Haneda services to allow Delta to launch service in Portland or Honolulu will only harm competition in the continental United States.

Based on Portland’s Small Local Demand and Extremely Limited Connectivity, Delta’s PDX-HND Proposal Offers Few Benefits and May Not Be Sustainable

Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service would give Delta Haneda service at three West Coast gateways, including two in the Pacific Northwest: LAX, SEA, and PDX. Few passengers would benefit from PDX-HND service. Delta’s application states that Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consists of just 63 passengers daily each way. Las Vegas - Tokyo O&D traffic, by contrast, consists of nearly twice as many passengers daily each way. Moreover, Delta offers no meaningful connectivity at Portland: all of its listed connections are to its U.S. hubs, most of which will have nonstop Haneda service should Delta’s first three proposals be awarded. Delta’s own connecting tables show that Portland residents will have convenient access to Tokyo via Delta’s SEA-HND service; layovers at SEA in both directions will be under 90 minutes.

Accordingly, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service is a textbook example of a proposal that does not merit selection. When the Department rejected Delta’s LAX - Beijing (PEK) proposal in 2016, for instance, the Department reasoned that “all of the connecting points Delta proposes already have connecting service to Beijing on Delta over Seattle.” The same is true here: all of Delta’s Portland connecting points also have connections via Seattle, and most will have nonstop Haneda service as well. Because Portland is sandwiched between two West Coast gateways with Haneda service via Delta, has smaller local demand, and has even smaller, duplicative connectivity, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service should not be selected.

Moreover, passenger demand may not even be sufficient to sustain its PDX-HND proposal on a daily, year-round basis. Delta currently offers PDX-NRT service just five times weekly for most of the year. More than 40 percent of the passengers on this service are not Tokyo O&D travelers, and connect to destinations served by Delta beyond Narita. Should Delta’s flight be moved to Haneda and be expanded to year-round daily, Delta will lose passengers while increasing seats. With Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consisting of just 63 passengers daily each way and Delta’s minimal, duplicative connectivity, there is no basis to believe that Delta’s current beyond- Narita connecting passengers will be replaced by a sufficient number of Tokyo O&D travelers.

Without an unrealistic surge in demand for Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service, it is exposed to the same seasonal performance variations that afflicted Delta’s failed SEA-HND service four years ago. When Delta suspended its SEA-HND service for the 2014 winter traffic season, Delta claimed that it was “was commercially necessary to make seasonal reductions” due to poor winter demand. In defending its actions, Delta demonstrated that “Seattle–Tokyo winter demand is more seasonal than other Haneda gateways.” Specifically, “Seattle – Tokyo winter demand is 35% less than in summer months.” “Delta’s expanding Seattle hub network will work to offset these seasonal variations in the future,” Delta told the Department. As Delta explained, increasing its Seattle connections “will provide the necessary feed needed to make the Seattle- Haneda service a continued success.”

By proposing to launch daily year-round PDX-HND service, Delta ignores the lessons of its failure in Seattle. Portland is a much smaller local market for Tokyo service, as shown in Delta’s exhibits, and it does not currently sustain year-round Tokyo service today. Based on the weaker demand for Tokyo service in the Pacific Northwest during the winter, as previously described by Delta, Delta only operates its PDX-NRT service five times weekly during the winter season and into May. And Delta’s connectivity at PDX is far worse than its connectivity at SEA was in 2014, when it was unable to sustain SEA-HND service. The cloud of uncertainty as to whether Delta can sustain PDX-HND service on a daily, year-round basis further weakens any case for awarding it.

AS737MAX, thank you for posting this here. I was going to do it myself but never got around to it.

Here is my take on it,
AA knows that their proposed "odd" route is LAS-HND. They have this route as their 4th priority route (if i recall correctly). Delta's "odd" route would be PDX-HND, also their 4th priority route (by "odd", I mean a non-hub route that is unique within their route network and at a lower priority position). Delta has HNL-HND as well but at a lower priority position than PDX-HND is placed at. In this case, LAS-HND and PDX-HND are pretty much squared up against each other. I personally think that both of these routes will make the cut because they both have strong local markets. AA's argument is that LAS-HND has a significantly higher overall PDEW than PDX-HND does. DL's argument is that LAS-HND has a much higher point-of-sale figure in Japan than it does in the United States, meaning that more passengers are going to originate from Japan to Las Vegas than the other way around. They also state that while LAS-HND will mostly consist of leisure traffic, PDX-HND will have a much higher business market, likely from Nike and other Fortune 500 companies that DL listed on their application. Funny enough though, both AA and DL flew LAS-NRT during CES. So there's also a business-market argued for LAS-HND as well.

Overall, I see Delta and United both getting 4 slots, with American getting 3 and Hawaiian getting 1:
AA: DFW #1, LAX, LAS
DL: SEA, DTW, ATL, PDX
UA: EWR, ORD, IAD, LAX
HA: HNL #1

I also mentioned this on the other thread but I'll go ahead and post it here as well: If the DoT decides to "evenly" split up the slots between the four carriers, that would mean that each of them gets 3 slots, which means that PDX does not end up making the cut. There is a possibility for this, if the DoT wants to distribute the slots "evenly" amongst the four carriers, but I highly doubt that HA will be awarded 3 extra HND-HNL slots on top of the 2 that they already have. In fact, I don't think DL will get any of the HNL-HND routes that they applied for at all.

bigfoot0503 wrote:
I'm not really certain how to address this statement by American. On one hand I found myself "put-off" by their reasoning and frankly questioning not only their logic but the credibility of their statements. This all coming from a carrier (American) who as far back as I can recall has done NOTHING to nurture and grow their presence in Portland.

bigfoot0503, I agree with you 100%. The last addition from AA at PDX was a second daily CLT flight, which has been struggling for a long time. It was reduced to 4x weekly, then 3x weekly, and then they suspended the flight altogether until early June. Not to mention that their currently running PDX-CLT flight only operates 6x weekly now (no CLT flights at all on Saturdays until early May). Before that, they added 3x daily PDX-LAX on their E175s. They have recently added a fourth daily flight on this route. Also something to note, I think their PDX-DFW frequencies have been slowly decreasing overtime as well, however this may be because they have slowly upgraded their jets on this route overtime from MD-80s to Boeing 737-800s, and now to Airbus A321s. What I find interesting, is that they fly to Charlotte year-round but only seasonally to Philadelphia and not to Miami at all. I would think that PDX-MIA/PHL would have higher PDEW numbers than PDX-CLT does, but I could be wrong. With strong O&D traffic alongside connecting traffic, I think both routes would do very well year-round. And if PDX-CLT is struggling that much, maybe they need to pull out of that route altogether and give PDX-PHL/MIA a try instead. With that being said, I think at one point I heard that CLT was their second most profitable hub, with DFW being number one.


Not a problem! I think that your HND routes breakdown makes the most sense and should be what the DOT chooses. Every carrier gets at least their top pick, and the routes get evenly geographically distributed. AA is spread thin through their massive network and I could see their increasing reliance on JL as a reason for not giving them 2x LAX or DFW.
 
pdxav8r
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:48 am

FA9295 wrote:
AS737MAX wrote:
FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0016

Delta’s Portland and Honolulu Proposals, If Granted, Will Squander Scarce Haneda Slot-Pairs While Preventing Competition from Other Carriers

Due to the limited number of Haneda slot-pairs available and the need for competition from American, Delta should not be granted excess slot-pairs to launch Haneda services at PDX and HNL. Delta’s proposed PDX-HND and HNL-HND services will expand Tokyo service at gateways where it will not maximize public benefits, while depriving other communities of Haneda service that need it greatly. Moreover, with negligible connectivity, Delta’s proposals will do little to improve Haneda access for U.S. passengers. Rejecting American’s proposed Haneda services to allow Delta to launch service in Portland or Honolulu will only harm competition in the continental United States.

Based on Portland’s Small Local Demand and Extremely Limited Connectivity, Delta’s PDX-HND Proposal Offers Few Benefits and May Not Be Sustainable

Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service would give Delta Haneda service at three West Coast gateways, including two in the Pacific Northwest: LAX, SEA, and PDX. Few passengers would benefit from PDX-HND service. Delta’s application states that Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consists of just 63 passengers daily each way. Las Vegas - Tokyo O&D traffic, by contrast, consists of nearly twice as many passengers daily each way. Moreover, Delta offers no meaningful connectivity at Portland: all of its listed connections are to its U.S. hubs, most of which will have nonstop Haneda service should Delta’s first three proposals be awarded. Delta’s own connecting tables show that Portland residents will have convenient access to Tokyo via Delta’s SEA-HND service; layovers at SEA in both directions will be under 90 minutes.

Accordingly, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service is a textbook example of a proposal that does not merit selection. When the Department rejected Delta’s LAX - Beijing (PEK) proposal in 2016, for instance, the Department reasoned that “all of the connecting points Delta proposes already have connecting service to Beijing on Delta over Seattle.” The same is true here: all of Delta’s Portland connecting points also have connections via Seattle, and most will have nonstop Haneda service as well. Because Portland is sandwiched between two West Coast gateways with Haneda service via Delta, has smaller local demand, and has even smaller, duplicative connectivity, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service should not be selected.

Moreover, passenger demand may not even be sufficient to sustain its PDX-HND proposal on a daily, year-round basis. Delta currently offers PDX-NRT service just five times weekly for most of the year. More than 40 percent of the passengers on this service are not Tokyo O&D travelers, and connect to destinations served by Delta beyond Narita. Should Delta’s flight be moved to Haneda and be expanded to year-round daily, Delta will lose passengers while increasing seats. With Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consisting of just 63 passengers daily each way and Delta’s minimal, duplicative connectivity, there is no basis to believe that Delta’s current beyond- Narita connecting passengers will be replaced by a sufficient number of Tokyo O&D travelers.

Without an unrealistic surge in demand for Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service, it is exposed to the same seasonal performance variations that afflicted Delta’s failed SEA-HND service four years ago. When Delta suspended its SEA-HND service for the 2014 winter traffic season, Delta claimed that it was “was commercially necessary to make seasonal reductions” due to poor winter demand. In defending its actions, Delta demonstrated that “Seattle–Tokyo winter demand is more seasonal than other Haneda gateways.” Specifically, “Seattle – Tokyo winter demand is 35% less than in summer months.” “Delta’s expanding Seattle hub network will work to offset these seasonal variations in the future,” Delta told the Department. As Delta explained, increasing its Seattle connections “will provide the necessary feed needed to make the Seattle- Haneda service a continued success.”

By proposing to launch daily year-round PDX-HND service, Delta ignores the lessons of its failure in Seattle. Portland is a much smaller local market for Tokyo service, as shown in Delta’s exhibits, and it does not currently sustain year-round Tokyo service today. Based on the weaker demand for Tokyo service in the Pacific Northwest during the winter, as previously described by Delta, Delta only operates its PDX-NRT service five times weekly during the winter season and into May. And Delta’s connectivity at PDX is far worse than its connectivity at SEA was in 2014, when it was unable to sustain SEA-HND service. The cloud of uncertainty as to whether Delta can sustain PDX-HND service on a daily, year-round basis further weakens any case for awarding it.

AS737MAX, thank you for posting this here. I was going to do it myself but never got around to it.

Here is my take on it,
AA knows that their proposed "odd" route is LAS-HND. They have this route as their 4th priority route (if i recall correctly). Delta's "odd" route would be PDX-HND, also their 4th priority route (by "odd", I mean a non-hub route that is unique within their route network and at a lower priority position). Delta has HNL-HND as well but at a lower priority position than PDX-HND is placed at. In this case, LAS-HND and PDX-HND are pretty much squared up against each other. I personally think that both of these routes will make the cut because they both have strong local markets. AA's argument is that LAS-HND has a significantly higher overall PDEW than PDX-HND does. DL's argument is that LAS-HND has a much higher point-of-sale figure in Japan than it does in the United States, meaning that more passengers are going to originate from Japan to Las Vegas than the other way around. They also state that while LAS-HND will mostly consist of leisure traffic, PDX-HND will have a much higher business market, likely from Nike and other Fortune 500 companies that DL listed on their application. Funny enough though, both AA and DL flew LAS-NRT during CES. So there's also a business-market argued for LAS-HND as well.

Overall, I see Delta and United both getting 4 slots, with American getting 3 and Hawaiian getting 1:
AA: DFW #1, LAX, LAS
DL: SEA, DTW, ATL, PDX
UA: EWR, ORD, IAD, LAX
HA: HNL #1

I also mentioned this on the other thread but I'll go ahead and post it here as well: If the DoT decides to "evenly" split up the slots between the four carriers, that would mean that each of them gets 3 slots, which means that PDX does not end up making the cut. There is a possibility for this, if the DoT wants to distribute the slots "evenly" amongst the four carriers, but I highly doubt that HA will be awarded 3 extra HND-HNL slots on top of the 2 that they already have. In fact, I don't think DL will get any of the HNL-HND routes that they applied for at all.

bigfoot0503 wrote:
I'm not really certain how to address this statement by American. On one hand I found myself "put-off" by their reasoning and frankly questioning not only their logic but the credibility of their statements. This all coming from a carrier (American) who as far back as I can recall has done NOTHING to nurture and grow their presence in Portland.

bigfoot0503, I agree with you 100%. The last addition from AA at PDX was a second daily CLT flight, which has been struggling for a long time. It was reduced to 4x weekly, then 3x weekly, and then they suspended the flight altogether until early June. Not to mention that their currently running PDX-CLT flight only operates 6x weekly now (no CLT flights at all on Saturdays until early May). Before that, they added 3x daily PDX-LAX on their E175s. They have recently added a fourth daily flight on this route. Also something to note, I think their PDX-DFW frequencies have been slowly decreasing overtime as well, however this may be because they have slowly upgraded their jets on this route overtime from MD-80s to Boeing 737-800s, and now to Airbus A321s. What I find interesting, is that they fly to Charlotte year-round but only seasonally to Philadelphia and not to Miami at all. I would think that PDX-MIA/PHL would have higher PDEW numbers than PDX-CLT does, but I could be wrong. With strong O&D traffic alongside connecting traffic, I think both routes would do very well year-round. And if PDX-CLT is struggling that much, maybe they need to pull out of that route altogether and give PDX-PHL/MIA a try instead. With that being said, I think at one point I heard that CLT was their second most profitable hub, with DFW being number one.


Yeah, there was a post on the Japanese authority thread that basically said if TYO-LAS traffic was so underserved, why isn’t anyone flying it? O&D is great, but how many seats up front will you be selling? Me thinks AA really stepped on their tongue on their rebuttal to PDX-HND service. They argue that the only connectivity via PDX would be via DL hubs...Well, AA only serves hubs from LAS as well. Dumb, pointless argument.

Concerning AA to CLT vs. MIA, it is pretty simple. MIA serves as a great gateway to the Caribbean, South America, and cruise passengers. But there aren’t a ton of PDX passengers that require that connection. Not a ton of O&D either. CLT is a much better connecting point for where PDX pax are heading, including the mid-southeast. MIA would end up being a big back-track. DFW and CLT connect PDX better. MIA could happen in the future, just not enough to make it work now.

Another poster on that thread alluded to the fact AA could be posturing for their partner, JL to benefit, possibly pick up the DL slack if PDX-HND isn’t awarded. Keep in mind this would also benefit their other partner, AS, as well, knowing PDX may be on JL’s radar if the DL bid falls through. Kind of a reach, but not out of the question.
Last edited by pdxav8r on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
pdxav8r
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:53 am

Dupe post, please delete.
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:37 am

pdxav8r wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
AS737MAX wrote:
FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0016

Delta’s Portland and Honolulu Proposals, If Granted, Will Squander Scarce Haneda Slot-Pairs While Preventing Competition from Other Carriers

Due to the limited number of Haneda slot-pairs available and the need for competition from American, Delta should not be granted excess slot-pairs to launch Haneda services at PDX and HNL. Delta’s proposed PDX-HND and HNL-HND services will expand Tokyo service at gateways where it will not maximize public benefits, while depriving other communities of Haneda service that need it greatly. Moreover, with negligible connectivity, Delta’s proposals will do little to improve Haneda access for U.S. passengers. Rejecting American’s proposed Haneda services to allow Delta to launch service in Portland or Honolulu will only harm competition in the continental United States.

Based on Portland’s Small Local Demand and Extremely Limited Connectivity, Delta’s PDX-HND Proposal Offers Few Benefits and May Not Be Sustainable

Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service would give Delta Haneda service at three West Coast gateways, including two in the Pacific Northwest: LAX, SEA, and PDX. Few passengers would benefit from PDX-HND service. Delta’s application states that Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consists of just 63 passengers daily each way. Las Vegas - Tokyo O&D traffic, by contrast, consists of nearly twice as many passengers daily each way. Moreover, Delta offers no meaningful connectivity at Portland: all of its listed connections are to its U.S. hubs, most of which will have nonstop Haneda service should Delta’s first three proposals be awarded. Delta’s own connecting tables show that Portland residents will have convenient access to Tokyo via Delta’s SEA-HND service; layovers at SEA in both directions will be under 90 minutes.

Accordingly, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service is a textbook example of a proposal that does not merit selection. When the Department rejected Delta’s LAX - Beijing (PEK) proposal in 2016, for instance, the Department reasoned that “all of the connecting points Delta proposes already have connecting service to Beijing on Delta over Seattle.” The same is true here: all of Delta’s Portland connecting points also have connections via Seattle, and most will have nonstop Haneda service as well. Because Portland is sandwiched between two West Coast gateways with Haneda service via Delta, has smaller local demand, and has even smaller, duplicative connectivity, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service should not be selected.

Moreover, passenger demand may not even be sufficient to sustain its PDX-HND proposal on a daily, year-round basis. Delta currently offers PDX-NRT service just five times weekly for most of the year. More than 40 percent of the passengers on this service are not Tokyo O&D travelers, and connect to destinations served by Delta beyond Narita. Should Delta’s flight be moved to Haneda and be expanded to year-round daily, Delta will lose passengers while increasing seats. With Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consisting of just 63 passengers daily each way and Delta’s minimal, duplicative connectivity, there is no basis to believe that Delta’s current beyond- Narita connecting passengers will be replaced by a sufficient number of Tokyo O&D travelers.

Without an unrealistic surge in demand for Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service, it is exposed to the same seasonal performance variations that afflicted Delta’s failed SEA-HND service four years ago. When Delta suspended its SEA-HND service for the 2014 winter traffic season, Delta claimed that it was “was commercially necessary to make seasonal reductions” due to poor winter demand. In defending its actions, Delta demonstrated that “Seattle–Tokyo winter demand is more seasonal than other Haneda gateways.” Specifically, “Seattle – Tokyo winter demand is 35% less than in summer months.” “Delta’s expanding Seattle hub network will work to offset these seasonal variations in the future,” Delta told the Department. As Delta explained, increasing its Seattle connections “will provide the necessary feed needed to make the Seattle- Haneda service a continued success.”

By proposing to launch daily year-round PDX-HND service, Delta ignores the lessons of its failure in Seattle. Portland is a much smaller local market for Tokyo service, as shown in Delta’s exhibits, and it does not currently sustain year-round Tokyo service today. Based on the weaker demand for Tokyo service in the Pacific Northwest during the winter, as previously described by Delta, Delta only operates its PDX-NRT service five times weekly during the winter season and into May. And Delta’s connectivity at PDX is far worse than its connectivity at SEA was in 2014, when it was unable to sustain SEA-HND service. The cloud of uncertainty as to whether Delta can sustain PDX-HND service on a daily, year-round basis further weakens any case for awarding it.

AS737MAX, thank you for posting this here. I was going to do it myself but never got around to it.

Here is my take on it,
AA knows that their proposed "odd" route is LAS-HND. They have this route as their 4th priority route (if i recall correctly). Delta's "odd" route would be PDX-HND, also their 4th priority route (by "odd", I mean a non-hub route that is unique within their route network and at a lower priority position). Delta has HNL-HND as well but at a lower priority position than PDX-HND is placed at. In this case, LAS-HND and PDX-HND are pretty much squared up against each other. I personally think that both of these routes will make the cut because they both have strong local markets. AA's argument is that LAS-HND has a significantly higher overall PDEW than PDX-HND does. DL's argument is that LAS-HND has a much higher point-of-sale figure in Japan than it does in the United States, meaning that more passengers are going to originate from Japan to Las Vegas than the other way around. They also state that while LAS-HND will mostly consist of leisure traffic, PDX-HND will have a much higher business market, likely from Nike and other Fortune 500 companies that DL listed on their application. Funny enough though, both AA and DL flew LAS-NRT during CES. So there's also a business-market argued for LAS-HND as well.

Overall, I see Delta and United both getting 4 slots, with American getting 3 and Hawaiian getting 1:
AA: DFW #1, LAX, LAS
DL: SEA, DTW, ATL, PDX
UA: EWR, ORD, IAD, LAX
HA: HNL #1

I also mentioned this on the other thread but I'll go ahead and post it here as well: If the DoT decides to "evenly" split up the slots between the four carriers, that would mean that each of them gets 3 slots, which means that PDX does not end up making the cut. There is a possibility for this, if the DoT wants to distribute the slots "evenly" amongst the four carriers, but I highly doubt that HA will be awarded 3 extra HND-HNL slots on top of the 2 that they already have. In fact, I don't think DL will get any of the HNL-HND routes that they applied for at all.

bigfoot0503 wrote:
I'm not really certain how to address this statement by American. On one hand I found myself "put-off" by their reasoning and frankly questioning not only their logic but the credibility of their statements. This all coming from a carrier (American) who as far back as I can recall has done NOTHING to nurture and grow their presence in Portland.

bigfoot0503, I agree with you 100%. The last addition from AA at PDX was a second daily CLT flight, which has been struggling for a long time. It was reduced to 4x weekly, then 3x weekly, and then they suspended the flight altogether until early June. Not to mention that their currently running PDX-CLT flight only operates 6x weekly now (no CLT flights at all on Saturdays until early May). Before that, they added 3x daily PDX-LAX on their E175s. They have recently added a fourth daily flight on this route. Also something to note, I think their PDX-DFW frequencies have been slowly decreasing overtime as well, however this may be because they have slowly upgraded their jets on this route overtime from MD-80s to Boeing 737-800s, and now to Airbus A321s. What I find interesting, is that they fly to Charlotte year-round but only seasonally to Philadelphia and not to Miami at all. I would think that PDX-MIA/PHL would have higher PDEW numbers than PDX-CLT does, but I could be wrong. With strong O&D traffic alongside connecting traffic, I think both routes would do very well year-round. And if PDX-CLT is struggling that much, maybe they need to pull out of that route altogether and give PDX-PHL/MIA a try instead. With that being said, I think at one point I heard that CLT was their second most profitable hub, with DFW being number one.


Yeah, there was a post on the Japanese authority thread that basically said if TYO-LAS traffic was so underserved, why isn’t anyone flying it? O&D is great, but how many seats up front will you be selling? Me thinks AA really stepped on their tongue on their rebuttal to PDX-HND service. They argue that the only connectivity via PDX would be via DL hubs...Well, AA only serves hubs from LAS as well. Dumb, pointless argument.

Concerning AA to CLT vs. MIA, it is pretty simple. MIA serves as a great gateway to the Caribbean, South America, and cruise passengers. But there aren’t a ton of PDX passengers that require that connection. Not a ton of O&D either. CLT is a much better connecting point for where PDX pax are heading, including the mid-southeast. MIA would end up being a big back-track. DFW and CLT connect PDX better. MIA could happen in the future, just not enough to make it work now.

Another poster on that thread alluded to the fact AA could be posturing for their partner, JL to benefit, possibly pick up the DL slack if PDX-HND isn’t awarded. Keep in mind this would also benefit their other partner, AS, as well, knowing PDX may be on JL’s radar if the DL bid falls through. Kind of a reach, but not out of the question.


The lack of any LAS-TYO flight keeps coming back to me. AA knew it would be out of left field, and they still submitted it anyways. I'm sure they thought they'd capture *some* traffic - it's inevitable, but when your hub structure is off, it's only natural for the stronger players to get more slot pairs.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:20 pm

PDX757 wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but what advantage does HND have over NRT? I realize HND is quite a bit closer to Tokyo itself, and it seems like DL would be in pretty much the same position as they are now without a Japanese partner.

Delta doesn't need a Japanese partner, because they have the joint-venture with KE to connect their customers to greater Asia via ICN. Essentially, Delta wants to funnel passengers through ICN instead of NRT, while using HND as an O&D gateway to Tokyo.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:26 pm

AS737MAX wrote:
The lack of any LAS-TYO flight keeps coming back to me. AA knew it would be out of left field, and they still submitted it anyways. I'm sure they thought they'd capture *some* traffic - it's inevitable, but when your hub structure is off, it's only natural for the stronger players to get more slot pairs.

Right. The only other long-haul route that AA uses for O&D traffic only (that I can think of) is RDU-LHR. UA has pretty much none, except for their Guam flights. I think that LAS-TYO should be operated by JL, not AA.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:44 pm

AA CLT-PDX JUN 1.8>1.0[1.0] JUL 2>1.0[1.9] AUG 2>1.0[1.4] SEP 2>1.0[1.4] OCT 2>1.0[1.4] NOV 2>1.0[1.3] DEC 2>1.0[1.1]
UA IAH-PDX SEP 3>2[2]
UA DEN-EUG SEP 2>3[3]


Speak of the devil, it looks like the second CLT flight is now permanently gone.
 
N174UA
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:52 pm

pdxav8r wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
AS737MAX wrote:
FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Full PDF available for download here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0016

Delta’s Portland and Honolulu Proposals, If Granted, Will Squander Scarce Haneda Slot-Pairs While Preventing Competition from Other Carriers

Due to the limited number of Haneda slot-pairs available and the need for competition from American, Delta should not be granted excess slot-pairs to launch Haneda services at PDX and HNL. Delta’s proposed PDX-HND and HNL-HND services will expand Tokyo service at gateways where it will not maximize public benefits, while depriving other communities of Haneda service that need it greatly. Moreover, with negligible connectivity, Delta’s proposals will do little to improve Haneda access for U.S. passengers. Rejecting American’s proposed Haneda services to allow Delta to launch service in Portland or Honolulu will only harm competition in the continental United States.

Based on Portland’s Small Local Demand and Extremely Limited Connectivity, Delta’s PDX-HND Proposal Offers Few Benefits and May Not Be Sustainable

Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service would give Delta Haneda service at three West Coast gateways, including two in the Pacific Northwest: LAX, SEA, and PDX. Few passengers would benefit from PDX-HND service. Delta’s application states that Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consists of just 63 passengers daily each way. Las Vegas - Tokyo O&D traffic, by contrast, consists of nearly twice as many passengers daily each way. Moreover, Delta offers no meaningful connectivity at Portland: all of its listed connections are to its U.S. hubs, most of which will have nonstop Haneda service should Delta’s first three proposals be awarded. Delta’s own connecting tables show that Portland residents will have convenient access to Tokyo via Delta’s SEA-HND service; layovers at SEA in both directions will be under 90 minutes.

Accordingly, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service is a textbook example of a proposal that does not merit selection. When the Department rejected Delta’s LAX - Beijing (PEK) proposal in 2016, for instance, the Department reasoned that “all of the connecting points Delta proposes already have connecting service to Beijing on Delta over Seattle.” The same is true here: all of Delta’s Portland connecting points also have connections via Seattle, and most will have nonstop Haneda service as well. Because Portland is sandwiched between two West Coast gateways with Haneda service via Delta, has smaller local demand, and has even smaller, duplicative connectivity, Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service should not be selected.

Moreover, passenger demand may not even be sufficient to sustain its PDX-HND proposal on a daily, year-round basis. Delta currently offers PDX-NRT service just five times weekly for most of the year. More than 40 percent of the passengers on this service are not Tokyo O&D travelers, and connect to destinations served by Delta beyond Narita. Should Delta’s flight be moved to Haneda and be expanded to year-round daily, Delta will lose passengers while increasing seats. With Portland - Tokyo O&D traffic consisting of just 63 passengers daily each way and Delta’s minimal, duplicative connectivity, there is no basis to believe that Delta’s current beyond- Narita connecting passengers will be replaced by a sufficient number of Tokyo O&D travelers.

Without an unrealistic surge in demand for Delta’s proposed PDX-HND service, it is exposed to the same seasonal performance variations that afflicted Delta’s failed SEA-HND service four years ago. When Delta suspended its SEA-HND service for the 2014 winter traffic season, Delta claimed that it was “was commercially necessary to make seasonal reductions” due to poor winter demand. In defending its actions, Delta demonstrated that “Seattle–Tokyo winter demand is more seasonal than other Haneda gateways.” Specifically, “Seattle – Tokyo winter demand is 35% less than in summer months.” “Delta’s expanding Seattle hub network will work to offset these seasonal variations in the future,” Delta told the Department. As Delta explained, increasing its Seattle connections “will provide the necessary feed needed to make the Seattle- Haneda service a continued success.”

By proposing to launch daily year-round PDX-HND service, Delta ignores the lessons of its failure in Seattle. Portland is a much smaller local market for Tokyo service, as shown in Delta’s exhibits, and it does not currently sustain year-round Tokyo service today. Based on the weaker demand for Tokyo service in the Pacific Northwest during the winter, as previously described by Delta, Delta only operates its PDX-NRT service five times weekly during the winter season and into May. And Delta’s connectivity at PDX is far worse than its connectivity at SEA was in 2014, when it was unable to sustain SEA-HND service. The cloud of uncertainty as to whether Delta can sustain PDX-HND service on a daily, year-round basis further weakens any case for awarding it.

AS737MAX, thank you for posting this here. I was going to do it myself but never got around to it.

Here is my take on it,
AA knows that their proposed "odd" route is LAS-HND. They have this route as their 4th priority route (if i recall correctly). Delta's "odd" route would be PDX-HND, also their 4th priority route (by "odd", I mean a non-hub route that is unique within their route network and at a lower priority position). Delta has HNL-HND as well but at a lower priority position than PDX-HND is placed at. In this case, LAS-HND and PDX-HND are pretty much squared up against each other. I personally think that both of these routes will make the cut because they both have strong local markets. AA's argument is that LAS-HND has a significantly higher overall PDEW than PDX-HND does. DL's argument is that LAS-HND has a much higher point-of-sale figure in Japan than it does in the United States, meaning that more passengers are going to originate from Japan to Las Vegas than the other way around. They also state that while LAS-HND will mostly consist of leisure traffic, PDX-HND will have a much higher business market, likely from Nike and other Fortune 500 companies that DL listed on their application. Funny enough though, both AA and DL flew LAS-NRT during CES. So there's also a business-market argued for LAS-HND as well.

Overall, I see Delta and United both getting 4 slots, with American getting 3 and Hawaiian getting 1:
AA: DFW #1, LAX, LAS
DL: SEA, DTW, ATL, PDX
UA: EWR, ORD, IAD, LAX
HA: HNL #1

I also mentioned this on the other thread but I'll go ahead and post it here as well: If the DoT decides to "evenly" split up the slots between the four carriers, that would mean that each of them gets 3 slots, which means that PDX does not end up making the cut. There is a possibility for this, if the DoT wants to distribute the slots "evenly" amongst the four carriers, but I highly doubt that HA will be awarded 3 extra HND-HNL slots on top of the 2 that they already have. In fact, I don't think DL will get any of the HNL-HND routes that they applied for at all.

bigfoot0503 wrote:
I'm not really certain how to address this statement by American. On one hand I found myself "put-off" by their reasoning and frankly questioning not only their logic but the credibility of their statements. This all coming from a carrier (American) who as far back as I can recall has done NOTHING to nurture and grow their presence in Portland.

bigfoot0503, I agree with you 100%. The last addition from AA at PDX was a second daily CLT flight, which has been struggling for a long time. It was reduced to 4x weekly, then 3x weekly, and then they suspended the flight altogether until early June. Not to mention that their currently running PDX-CLT flight only operates 6x weekly now (no CLT flights at all on Saturdays until early May). Before that, they added 3x daily PDX-LAX on their E175s. They have recently added a fourth daily flight on this route. Also something to note, I think their PDX-DFW frequencies have been slowly decreasing overtime as well, however this may be because they have slowly upgraded their jets on this route overtime from MD-80s to Boeing 737-800s, and now to Airbus A321s. What I find interesting, is that they fly to Charlotte year-round but only seasonally to Philadelphia and not to Miami at all. I would think that PDX-MIA/PHL would have higher PDEW numbers than PDX-CLT does, but I could be wrong. With strong O&D traffic alongside connecting traffic, I think both routes would do very well year-round. And if PDX-CLT is struggling that much, maybe they need to pull out of that route altogether and give PDX-PHL/MIA a try instead. With that being said, I think at one point I heard that CLT was their second most profitable hub, with DFW being number one.


Yeah, there was a post on the Japanese authority thread that basically said if TYO-LAS traffic was so underserved, why isn’t anyone flying it? O&D is great, but how many seats up front will you be selling? Me thinks AA really stepped on their tongue on their rebuttal to PDX-HND service. They argue that the only connectivity via PDX would be via DL hubs...Well, AA only serves hubs from LAS as well. Dumb, pointless argument.

Concerning AA to CLT vs. MIA, it is pretty simple. MIA serves as a great gateway to the Caribbean, South America, and cruise passengers. But there aren’t a ton of PDX passengers that require that connection. Not a ton of O&D either. CLT is a much better connecting point for where PDX pax are heading, including the mid-southeast. MIA would end up being a big back-track. DFW and CLT connect PDX better. MIA could happen in the future, just not enough to make it work now.

Another poster on that thread alluded to the fact AA could be posturing for their partner, JL to benefit, possibly pick up the DL slack if PDX-HND isn’t awarded. Keep in mind this would also benefit their other partner, AS, as well, knowing PDX may be on JL’s radar if the DL bid falls through. Kind of a reach, but not out of the question.


DL is well established on the PDX-Japan route, and in PDX overall. JL knows that, and is why JL didn't apply for HND-PDX. JL also likely realizes that DL will be awarded the PDX-HND slot. NH wouldn't consider PDX, as there are few opportunities at PDX with UA.

How committed is AA to PDX, really? They can't seem to maintain consistent regular service on the route to CLT, and they aren't as close with AS anymore, either.
 
N174UA
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:15 pm

FA9295 wrote:
AS737MAX wrote:
FA9295 and jbpdx, thought I'd copy in AA's arguments against DL's PDX-HND here:

Overall, I see Delta and United both getting 4 slots, with American getting 3 and Hawaiian getting 1:
AA: DFW #1, LAX, LAS
DL: SEA, DTW, ATL, PDX
UA: EWR, ORD, IAD, LAX
HA: HNL #1

I also mentioned this on the other thread but I'll go ahead and post it here as well: If the DoT decides to "evenly" split up the slots between the four carriers, that would mean that each of them gets 3 slots, which means that PDX does not end up making the cut. There is a possibility for this, if the DoT wants to distribute the slots "evenly" amongst the four carriers, but I highly doubt that HA will be awarded 3 extra HND-HNL slots on top of the 2 that they already have. In fact, I don't think DL will get any of the HNL-HND routes that they applied for at all..


UA didn't apply for LAX-HND. It's a saturated market now, which is served by JL, NH, DL, and I believe AA as well. UA did however apply for IAH and GUM, in addition to EWR, ORD, and IAD.

My picks:
DL: SEA, DTW, ATL, PDX, HNL
UA: EWR, ORD, IAD, IAH
AA: DFW, LAX
HA: HNL
 
910A
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:11 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:15 pm

My :twocents: worth..At 63 passenger a day between PDX-NRT right now, DL will need to figure out how to fly a E-175 to HND to avoid losing a ton of money. The service on PDX-NRT started with a DC-10, then a 332 and now a 767. The majority of passengers on the flight are connecting to somewhere else in Asia, so unless DL figures out connections out of HND, the PDX service is doomed to failure. Side note the MSP-HND route hasn't been a success either for DL, currently it's just a placeholder to keep HND authority.

LAS-HND would probably work with a 788. One just needs to walk around the strip to see the number of visitors from Japan spending cold hard cash there. If KE can operated a 77W to LAS, I would gather that a 788 would work from one the largest cities in the world. Back in 84 or so coming into SFO on NW #8 from NRT and HNL, NW had a 727 parked in the adjacent gate to transports passengers to Sin City.
 
User avatar
bigfoot0503
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:38 pm

N174UA wrote:
pdxav8r wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
AS737MAX, thank you for posting this here. I was going to do it myself but never got around to it.

Here is my take on it,
AA knows that their proposed "odd" route is LAS-HND. They have this route as their 4th priority route (if i recall correctly). Delta's "odd" route would be PDX-HND, also their 4th priority route (by "odd", I mean a non-hub route that is unique within their route network and at a lower priority position). Delta has HNL-HND as well but at a lower priority position than PDX-HND is placed at. In this case, LAS-HND and PDX-HND are pretty much squared up against each other. I personally think that both of these routes will make the cut because they both have strong local markets. AA's argument is that LAS-HND has a significantly higher overall PDEW than PDX-HND does. DL's argument is that LAS-HND has a much higher point-of-sale figure in Japan than it does in the United States, meaning that more passengers are going to originate from Japan to Las Vegas than the other way around. They also state that while LAS-HND will mostly consist of leisure traffic, PDX-HND will have a much higher business market, likely from Nike and other Fortune 500 companies that DL listed on their application. Funny enough though, both AA and DL flew LAS-NRT during CES. So there's also a business-market argued for LAS-HND as well.

Overall, I see Delta and United both getting 4 slots, with American getting 3 and Hawaiian getting 1:
AA: DFW #1, LAX, LAS
DL: SEA, DTW, ATL, PDX
UA: EWR, ORD, IAD, LAX
HA: HNL #1

I also mentioned this on the other thread but I'll go ahead and post it here as well: If the DoT decides to "evenly" split up the slots between the four carriers, that would mean that each of them gets 3 slots, which means that PDX does not end up making the cut. There is a possibility for this, if the DoT wants to distribute the slots "evenly" amongst the four carriers, but I highly doubt that HA will be awarded 3 extra HND-HNL slots on top of the 2 that they already have. In fact, I don't think DL will get any of the HNL-HND routes that they applied for at all.


bigfoot0503, I agree with you 100%. The last addition from AA at PDX was a second daily CLT flight, which has been struggling for a long time. It was reduced to 4x weekly, then 3x weekly, and then they suspended the flight altogether until early June. Not to mention that their currently running PDX-CLT flight only operates 6x weekly now (no CLT flights at all on Saturdays until early May). Before that, they added 3x daily PDX-LAX on their E175s. They have recently added a fourth daily flight on this route. Also something to note, I think their PDX-DFW frequencies have been slowly decreasing overtime as well, however this may be because they have slowly upgraded their jets on this route overtime from MD-80s to Boeing 737-800s, and now to Airbus A321s. What I find interesting, is that they fly to Charlotte year-round but only seasonally to Philadelphia and not to Miami at all. I would think that PDX-MIA/PHL would have higher PDEW numbers than PDX-CLT does, but I could be wrong. With strong O&D traffic alongside connecting traffic, I think both routes would do very well year-round. And if PDX-CLT is struggling that much, maybe they need to pull out of that route altogether and give PDX-PHL/MIA a try instead. With that being said, I think at one point I heard that CLT was their second most profitable hub, with DFW being number one.


Yeah, there was a post on the Japanese authority thread that basically said if TYO-LAS traffic was so underserved, why isn’t anyone flying it? O&D is great, but how many seats up front will you be selling? Me thinks AA really stepped on their tongue on their rebuttal to PDX-HND service. They argue that the only connectivity via PDX would be via DL hubs...Well, AA only serves hubs from LAS as well. Dumb, pointless argument.

Concerning AA to CLT vs. MIA, it is pretty simple. MIA serves as a great gateway to the Caribbean, South America, and cruise passengers. But there aren’t a ton of PDX passengers that require that connection. Not a ton of O&D either. CLT is a much better connecting point for where PDX pax are heading, including the mid-southeast. MIA would end up being a big back-track. DFW and CLT connect PDX better. MIA could happen in the future, just not enough to make it work now.

Another poster on that thread alluded to the fact AA could be posturing for their partner, JL to benefit, possibly pick up the DL slack if PDX-HND isn’t awarded. Keep in mind this would also benefit their other partner, AS, as well, knowing PDX may be on JL’s radar if the DL bid falls through. Kind of a reach, but not out of the question.


DL is well established on the PDX-Japan route, and in PDX overall. JL knows that, and is why JL didn't apply for HND-PDX. JL also likely realizes that DL will be awarded the PDX-HND slot. NH wouldn't consider PDX, as there are few opportunities at PDX with UA.

How committed is AA to PDX, really? They can't seem to maintain consistent regular service on the route to CLT, and they aren't as close with AS anymore, either.


Speaking to AA's rebuttal document to the DOT...I came upon the Port of Portland's response to AA. The PDF contains a litany of letters from various businesses, civic organizations, schools, etc....all advocating for the DL service to continue with service from PDX to HND. What struck me are the connections that our region has in one way or another with Japan...many of these being fostered and maintained for years. These letters also for me outline some of the intangibles that at the end of the day any amount of statistic may not accurately measure or take into account. Some comments here on A.net would seem to put a tremendous amount of emphasis on the "63 passengers/day" between Tokyo and Portland. This is precisely what I am referencing when I suggest that the personal accounts in these letters represent many of the "intangibles" in the dynamic that is n/s air service between PDX and Tokyo.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0021
 
N174UA
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:46 pm

910A wrote:
My :twocents: worth..At 63 passenger a day between PDX-NRT right now, DL will need to figure out how to fly a E-175 to HND to avoid losing a ton of money. The service on PDX-NRT started with a DC-10, then a 332 and now a 767. The majority of passengers on the flight are connecting to somewhere else in Asia, so unless DL figures out connections out of HND, the PDX service is doomed to failure. Side note the MSP-HND route hasn't been a success either for DL, currently it's just a placeholder to keep HND authority.

LAS-HND would probably work with a 788. One just needs to walk around the strip to see the number of visitors from Japan spending cold hard cash there. If KE can operated a 77W to LAS, I would gather that a 788 would work from one the largest cities in the world. Back in 84 or so coming into SFO on NW #8 from NRT and HNL, NW had a 727 parked in the adjacent gate to transports passengers to Sin City.


DL's application stated the Passengers Daily Each Way (PDEW) for PDX-NRT is at 169. So please show me where it's not that, but instead just this 63 passengers per day?

Certainly Delta's revenue management and planning teams must have better data than you do for this market, otherwise they wouldn't have made it a priority at all, let alone operating it for the past 15 consecutive years.

For the record, PDX-NRT service started in 1983, with UA, who operated it twice per week (originating and terminating in ORD) using a 747-200. That lasted until 1986, and then DL took it over and operated it until 2001, using mostly MD-11. Then came NW in 2004 with A330, and then DL once again .starting in 2008. DL/NW have operated this route and its well established.
 
User avatar
jbpdx
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:37 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:52 pm

Some of American’s arguments and statistics-manipulation are laughable regarding PDX. American is ignoring Oregon’s historic relationship with Japan, the extensive business ties between Oregon and Japan, and the fact that 75,000 Japanese tourists visit Portland annually. Many of them prefer HND and are having to make connections. American openly lobbying against the Portland-Tokyo nonstop would be a good story for one of the TV stations.

American/OneWorld have a limited presence at and minimal commitment to PDX. They have no service not only to Asia but to Europe and to their hubs in Miami and Philadelphia (except 11 weeks in summer). If PDX loses the Tokyo flight, don’t count on OneWorld (or Star Alliance) filling the void. KE to ICN would not be an adequate replacement.
Next: AS PDX-OGG-PDX
DL PDX-LHR-PDX
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:02 pm

DL wouldn't forfeit the PDX-NRT route if they don't get HND, would they? Couldn't they just continue it as today?
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines (Retired). Flight Memory: 181 airports, 92 airlines, 78 a/c types, 403 routes, 58 countries (by air), 6 continents. 1,119,414 passenger miles.

Home airport : CEC
 
User avatar
TransWorldOne
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 12:13 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:21 pm

Wingtips56 wrote:
DL wouldn't forfeit the PDX-NRT route if they don't get HND, would they? Couldn't they just continue it as today?


Not when they’re trying to close their NRT operation entirely.
 
N174UA
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:42 pm

jbpdx wrote:
Some of American’s arguments and statistics-manipulation are laughable regarding PDX. American is ignoring Oregon’s historic relationship with Japan, the extensive business ties between Oregon and Japan, and the fact that 75,000 Japanese tourists visit Portland annually. Many of them prefer HND and are having to make connections. American openly lobbying against the Portland-Tokyo nonstop would be a good story for one of the TV stations.

American/OneWorld have a limited presence at and minimal commitment to PDX. They have no service not only to Asia but to Europe and to their hubs in Miami and Philadelphia (except 11 weeks in summer). If PDX loses the Tokyo flight, don’t count on OneWorld (or Star Alliance) filling the void. KE to ICN would not be an adequate replacement.


I think their response re: PDX-HND speaks volumes about the company that American Airlines is today. They likely know full well they won't get LAS-HND, so if they can knock down a similar type route (in their view) then that makes them feel better I guess. American is in PDX because they can offer cheap seats, and there will always be a market for that. But they have never been a player in that market, nor will they likely ever be, short of them buying AS.

If PDX does lose that Tokyo route, my bet is that DL will quickly apply for/get PDX-ICN and operate it using the same aircraft and frequency as PDX-NRT. It would be a huge blow to the Japanese trade relationship for sure, but with close proximity to SEA, and given their investment overall in PDX, DL will continue to be the dominant player in the PDX-Asia market. You're right that NH certainly wouldn't come in, and JL maybe one day, but it clearly isn't a priority for them now, otherwise, they would have applied for it and competed against DL. JL knows how well entrenched DL is in PDX, and likely anticipates DL getting the slot.

But my sense is that there is a >95% chance that DL will be awarded PDX-HND.
 
User avatar
bigfoot0503
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:26 am

N174UA wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
Some of American’s arguments and statistics-manipulation are laughable regarding PDX. American is ignoring Oregon’s historic relationship with Japan, the extensive business ties between Oregon and Japan, and the fact that 75,000 Japanese tourists visit Portland annually. Many of them prefer HND and are having to make connections. American openly lobbying against the Portland-Tokyo nonstop would be a good story for one of the TV stations.

American/OneWorld have a limited presence at and minimal commitment to PDX. They have no service not only to Asia but to Europe and to their hubs in Miami and Philadelphia (except 11 weeks in summer). If PDX loses the Tokyo flight, don’t count on OneWorld (or Star Alliance) filling the void. KE to ICN would not be an adequate replacement.


I think their response re: PDX-HND speaks volumes about the company that American Airlines is today. They likely know full well they won't get LAS-HND, so if they can knock down a similar type route (in their view) then that makes them feel better I guess. American is in PDX because they can offer cheap seats, and there will always be a market for that. But they have never been a player in that market, nor will they likely ever be, short of them buying AS.

If PDX does lose that Tokyo route, my bet is that DL will quickly apply for/get PDX-ICN and operate it using the same aircraft and frequency as PDX-NRT. It would be a huge blow to the Japanese trade relationship for sure, but with close proximity to SEA, and given their investment overall in PDX, DL will continue to be the dominant player in the PDX-Asia market. You're right that NH certainly wouldn't come in, and JL maybe one day, but it clearly isn't a priority for them now, otherwise, they would have applied for it and competed against DL. JL knows how well entrenched DL is in PDX, and likely anticipates DL getting the slot.

But my sense is that there is a >95% chance that DL will be awarded PDX-HND.


You did suggest an earlier theory that American was using the "anti PDX-HND for Delta" rhetoric to perhaps see the possibility that Delta does not receive the slot and may therefore exit the PDX-Tokyo market. This action would then leave the fairly lucrative route open to American's fellow alliance partner Japan Air Lines. While this may seem far-fetched...is it uncommon for rival businesses to employ these sort of tactics? My answer is NO...it is likely more common than one might think. Granted I understand many successive decisions would have to play out in favor of American Airlines...but the question arises with the slot decision forthcoming...why is American seemingly the only carrier who has resorted to singling out markets that other carriers have applied for? In this case they are clearly focused on some negative metrics to discredit Delta and their application for the PDX-HND slot. Did any of the other applying carriers resort to this "discrediting campaign"? Why not focus on the merits of the application and the city pairs submitted rather than trying to highlight another carriers choice of slot allocations?
 
N174UA
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:22 am

bigfoot0503 wrote:
N174UA wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
Some of American’s arguments and statistics-manipulation are laughable regarding PDX. American is ignoring Oregon’s historic relationship with Japan, the extensive business ties between Oregon and Japan, and the fact that 75,000 Japanese tourists visit Portland annually. Many of them prefer HND and are having to make connections. American openly lobbying against the Portland-Tokyo nonstop would be a good story for one of the TV stations.

American/OneWorld have a limited presence at and minimal commitment to PDX. They have no service not only to Asia but to Europe and to their hubs in Miami and Philadelphia (except 11 weeks in summer). If PDX loses the Tokyo flight, don’t count on OneWorld (or Star Alliance) filling the void. KE to ICN would not be an adequate replacement.


I think their response re: PDX-HND speaks volumes about the company that American Airlines is today. They likely know full well they won't get LAS-HND, so if they can knock down a similar type route (in their view) then that makes them feel better I guess. American is in PDX because they can offer cheap seats, and there will always be a market for that. But they have never been a player in that market, nor will they likely ever be, short of them buying AS.

If PDX does lose that Tokyo route, my bet is that DL will quickly apply for/get PDX-ICN and operate it using the same aircraft and frequency as PDX-NRT. It would be a huge blow to the Japanese trade relationship for sure, but with close proximity to SEA, and given their investment overall in PDX, DL will continue to be the dominant player in the PDX-Asia market. You're right that NH certainly wouldn't come in, and JL maybe one day, but it clearly isn't a priority for them now, otherwise, they would have applied for it and competed against DL. JL knows how well entrenched DL is in PDX, and likely anticipates DL getting the slot.

But my sense is that there is a >95% chance that DL will be awarded PDX-HND.


You did suggest an earlier theory that American was using the "anti PDX-HND for Delta" rhetoric to perhaps see the possibility that Delta does not receive the slot and may therefore exit the PDX-Tokyo market. This action would then leave the fairly lucrative route open to American's fellow alliance partner Japan Air Lines. While this may seem far-fetched...is it uncommon for rival businesses to employ these sort of tactics? My answer is NO...it is likely more common than one might think. Granted I understand many successive decisions would have to play out in favor of American Airlines...but the question arises with the slot decision forthcoming...why is American seemingly the only carrier who has resorted to singling out markets that other carriers have applied for? In this case they are clearly focused on some negative metrics to discredit Delta and their application for the PDX-HND slot. Did any of the other applying carriers resort to this "discrediting campaign"? Why not focus on the merits of the application and the city pairs submitted rather than trying to highlight another carriers choice of slot allocations?


Perhaps AA and JL had a conference call at some point and had HND-PDX as a "what-if/someday/maybe" item. But AA has a very small (and shrinking) footprint in PDX, and any feed JL provided would feed AS. Could AA be looking at acquiring AS? Maybe...then it would make sense to fight DL's bid for PDX-HND.

I didn't read the Hawaiian response, but UA seemed to offer a very tepid opposition to PDX-HND, only because its a slot they could have for say, GUM-HND.

I hope someone at the Port of Portland is monitoring AA's opposition...it could boomerang back and hurt AA when they least expect it.
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:07 am

bigfoot0503 wrote:
N174UA wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
Some of American’s arguments and statistics-manipulation are laughable regarding PDX. American is ignoring Oregon’s historic relationship with Japan, the extensive business ties between Oregon and Japan, and the fact that 75,000 Japanese tourists visit Portland annually. Many of them prefer HND and are having to make connections. American openly lobbying against the Portland-Tokyo nonstop would be a good story for one of the TV stations.

American/OneWorld have a limited presence at and minimal commitment to PDX. They have no service not only to Asia but to Europe and to their hubs in Miami and Philadelphia (except 11 weeks in summer). If PDX loses the Tokyo flight, don’t count on OneWorld (or Star Alliance) filling the void. KE to ICN would not be an adequate replacement.


I think their response re: PDX-HND speaks volumes about the company that American Airlines is today. They likely know full well they won't get LAS-HND, so if they can knock down a similar type route (in their view) then that makes them feel better I guess. American is in PDX because they can offer cheap seats, and there will always be a market for that. But they have never been a player in that market, nor will they likely ever be, short of them buying AS.

If PDX does lose that Tokyo route, my bet is that DL will quickly apply for/get PDX-ICN and operate it using the same aircraft and frequency as PDX-NRT. It would be a huge blow to the Japanese trade relationship for sure, but with close proximity to SEA, and given their investment overall in PDX, DL will continue to be the dominant player in the PDX-Asia market. You're right that NH certainly wouldn't come in, and JL maybe one day, but it clearly isn't a priority for them now, otherwise, they would have applied for it and competed against DL. JL knows how well entrenched DL is in PDX, and likely anticipates DL getting the slot.

But my sense is that there is a >95% chance that DL will be awarded PDX-HND.


You did suggest an earlier theory that American was using the "anti PDX-HND for Delta" rhetoric to perhaps see the possibility that Delta does not receive the slot and may therefore exit the PDX-Tokyo market. This action would then leave the fairly lucrative route open to American's fellow alliance partner Japan Air Lines. While this may seem far-fetched...is it uncommon for rival businesses to employ these sort of tactics? My answer is NO...it is likely more common than one might think. Granted I understand many successive decisions would have to play out in favor of American Airlines...but the question arises with the slot decision forthcoming...why is American seemingly the only carrier who has resorted to singling out markets that other carriers have applied for? In this case they are clearly focused on some negative metrics to discredit Delta and their application for the PDX-HND slot. Did any of the other applying carriers resort to this "discrediting campaign"? Why not focus on the merits of the application and the city pairs submitted rather than trying to highlight another carriers choice of slot allocations?


From what I could tell, AA was the only carrier who actively sought to discredit merits of another carrier's proposed routes. UA and DL argued for or against the other carriers' networks and markets as a whole.
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:11 am

N174UA wrote:
bigfoot0503 wrote:
N174UA wrote:

I think their response re: PDX-HND speaks volumes about the company that American Airlines is today. They likely know full well they won't get LAS-HND, so if they can knock down a similar type route (in their view) then that makes them feel better I guess. American is in PDX because they can offer cheap seats, and there will always be a market for that. But they have never been a player in that market, nor will they likely ever be, short of them buying AS.

If PDX does lose that Tokyo route, my bet is that DL will quickly apply for/get PDX-ICN and operate it using the same aircraft and frequency as PDX-NRT. It would be a huge blow to the Japanese trade relationship for sure, but with close proximity to SEA, and given their investment overall in PDX, DL will continue to be the dominant player in the PDX-Asia market. You're right that NH certainly wouldn't come in, and JL maybe one day, but it clearly isn't a priority for them now, otherwise, they would have applied for it and competed against DL. JL knows how well entrenched DL is in PDX, and likely anticipates DL getting the slot.

But my sense is that there is a >95% chance that DL will be awarded PDX-HND.


You did suggest an earlier theory that American was using the "anti PDX-HND for Delta" rhetoric to perhaps see the possibility that Delta does not receive the slot and may therefore exit the PDX-Tokyo market. This action would then leave the fairly lucrative route open to American's fellow alliance partner Japan Air Lines. While this may seem far-fetched...is it uncommon for rival businesses to employ these sort of tactics? My answer is NO...it is likely more common than one might think. Granted I understand many successive decisions would have to play out in favor of American Airlines...but the question arises with the slot decision forthcoming...why is American seemingly the only carrier who has resorted to singling out markets that other carriers have applied for? In this case they are clearly focused on some negative metrics to discredit Delta and their application for the PDX-HND slot. Did any of the other applying carriers resort to this "discrediting campaign"? Why not focus on the merits of the application and the city pairs submitted rather than trying to highlight another carriers choice of slot allocations?


Perhaps AA and JL had a conference call at some point and had HND-PDX as a "what-if/someday/maybe" item. But AA has a very small (and shrinking) footprint in PDX, and any feed JL provided would feed AS. Could AA be looking at acquiring AS? Maybe...then it would make sense to fight DL's bid for PDX-HND.

I didn't read the Hawaiian response, but UA seemed to offer a very tepid opposition to PDX-HND, only because its a slot they could have for say, GUM-HND.

I hope someone at the Port of Portland is monitoring AA's opposition...it could boomerang back and hurt AA when they least expect it.


I wouldn't be surprised if such an idea was thrown around between both carriers.. but OW and AA are the weakest by far in the Pacific Northwest. UA and *A used to be sizable around here, and like DL, it wouldn't be ridiculous to suggest that there's some level of loyalists and or elites. A couple of weeks ago, I compiled the AA domestic hub network using GCmap, and the PNW was a gaping hole. Seems like AA could have done better to maintain connections with AS, but have largely backed away from them. Makes me wonder if there was some sort of merger stipulations to curtail working with AS.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:42 am

Yes, as part of the AS-VX transaction concessions, AS and AA had to back off a great deal of their partnership, differing from the AS-DL divorce.

As to AA's HND statements, I don't see that AA's and oneworld's strengths at PDX are really at issue, since they aren't applying for a PNW gateway. I see it more of AA's trying to knock off they see as a a weaker opponent as an obstacle to their own application elsewhere, and that one is PDX. Not as "personal" attack on PDX, but just as the opponent to take out. The argument being that AA's application would serve more travellers than PDX and therefore better use the overly restricted asset as that is a slot at HND.

Remember that previous slots at HND given to AA and others had terrible timing that nobody could make money at. These daytime slot have much more value and are worth a stronger fight.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines (Retired). Flight Memory: 181 airports, 92 airlines, 78 a/c types, 403 routes, 58 countries (by air), 6 continents. 1,119,414 passenger miles.

Home airport : CEC
 
User avatar
bigfoot0503
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:24 pm

AS737MAX wrote:
bigfoot0503 wrote:
N174UA wrote:

I think their response re: PDX-HND speaks volumes about the company that American Airlines is today. They likely know full well they won't get LAS-HND, so if they can knock down a similar type route (in their view) then that makes them feel better I guess. American is in PDX because they can offer cheap seats, and there will always be a market for that. But they have never been a player in that market, nor will they likely ever be, short of them buying AS.

If PDX does lose that Tokyo route, my bet is that DL will quickly apply for/get PDX-ICN and operate it using the same aircraft and frequency as PDX-NRT. It would be a huge blow to the Japanese trade relationship for sure, but with close proximity to SEA, and given their investment overall in PDX, DL will continue to be the dominant player in the PDX-Asia market. You're right that NH certainly wouldn't come in, and JL maybe one day, but it clearly isn't a priority for them now, otherwise, they would have applied for it and competed against DL. JL knows how well entrenched DL is in PDX, and likely anticipates DL getting the slot.

But my sense is that there is a >95% chance that DL will be awarded PDX-HND.


You did suggest an earlier theory that American was using the "anti PDX-HND for Delta" rhetoric to perhaps see the possibility that Delta does not receive the slot and may therefore exit the PDX-Tokyo market. This action would then leave the fairly lucrative route open to American's fellow alliance partner Japan Air Lines. While this may seem far-fetched...is it uncommon for rival businesses to employ these sort of tactics? My answer is NO...it is likely more common than one might think. Granted I understand many successive decisions would have to play out in favor of American Airlines...but the question arises with the slot decision forthcoming...why is American seemingly the only carrier who has resorted to singling out markets that other carriers have applied for? In this case they are clearly focused on some negative metrics to discredit Delta and their application for the PDX-HND slot. Did any of the other applying carriers resort to this "discrediting campaign"? Why not focus on the merits of the application and the city pairs submitted rather than trying to highlight another carriers choice of slot allocations?


From what I could tell, AA was the only carrier who actively sought to discredit merits of another carrier's proposed routes. UA and DL argued for or against the other carriers' networks and markets as a whole.


Really engaging responses from everyone...I enjoyed reading some of the feedback and thoughts on this slot issue. At the end of the day...take away any type of loyalty I may feel towards one carrier or another, I simply can't shake the feeling that American is a bit slimy. As I suggested before and others have also pointed out, American hasn't really done much here in the Pacific NW and specifically at PDX. I think any consumer who is paying attention will make note of those carriers who bring quality, innovative and supportive airline service to a community. In my opinion here in Portland...American does not make that list.
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1535
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:30 am

I would be glad if Southwest Airlines served Eugene / Springfield from Oakland with connections to many more cities.
Why endure the nightmare and congestion of LAX when BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA is so much easier to fly in and out of. Same with OAK & SJC when it comes to SFO.
 
PDX757
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:01 am

dc10lover wrote:
I would be glad if Southwest Airlines served Eugene / Springfield from Oakland with connections to many more cities.


It would be neat, but I think when WN starts a city they generally add quite a few flights instead of only one or two. Not sure how many seats could be filled from EUG
 
jplatts
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:39 am

PDX757 wrote:
dc10lover wrote:
I would be glad if Southwest Airlines served Eugene / Springfield from Oakland with connections to many more cities.


It would be neat, but I think when WN starts a city they generally add quite a few flights instead of only one or two. Not sure how many seats could be filled from EUG


WN started service out of LGB back in June 2016 with nonstop service to only OAK, but WN added LGB-DEN, LGB-LAS, LGB-SMF, and LGB-SJC nonstop service once WN was able to acquire additional slots at LGB.

WN started service out of CVG back in June 2017 with nonstop service to only BWI and MDW out of CVG initially, but WN has since added daily nonstop service to DEN from CVG and resumed daily nonstop service to PHX from CVG on a seasonal basis.

WN will be starting service out of HNL on March 17th with nonstop service to only OAK initially, but WN has already announced plans to serve OGG, KOA, and SJC nonstop from HNL. WN has also already announced that it will be serving Hawaiian destinations nonstop from SMF and SAN.
 
pdxav8r
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:44 am

Going back to the possibility of DL not getting the PDX-HND slot (and possible, eventual cancellation). Many correctly state JL would be perfect with the AS connection on one end. But looking a little deeper, with NH being pretty dominant in Japan right now, NH might be the eventual one to fill the hole, hypothetically. When you consider NH flies N/S from SJC to NRT with no partner on the US side (anything sizeable), they might not be the dark horse people are making them out to be. With JL being timid in adding US routes, and just adding SEA, NH might be that carrier that ends up picking up PDX-TYO, if it comes to that. Also, as US airlines have produced their ‘wish list’, have the Japanese carriers produced theirs? As far as I have seen, the split of the possible wants by airlines have only come by US airlines. Please correct me if I missed it.
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 2109
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:19 am

^^^ Currently sitting on a Delta 767-300ER about to do AMS-PDX. These birds are getting pretty tired.

I flew over here on virgin 787-9 (Sea-lhr) and man... night and day difference.

Really hope that A339s ply this route in the next year or two. (Since delta isn’t getting 787s....)
 
User avatar
jbpdx
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:37 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:11 pm

BlatantEcho wrote:
^^^ Currently sitting on a Delta 767-300ER about to do AMS-PDX. These birds are getting pretty tired.

I flew over here on virgin 787-9 (Sea-lhr) and man... night and day difference.

Really hope that A339s ply this route in the next year or two. (Since delta isn’t getting 787s....)


The A333 PDX-AMS resumes 31 March.
Next: AS PDX-OGG-PDX
DL PDX-LHR-PDX
 
User avatar
jbpdx
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:37 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:24 pm

bigfoot0503 wrote:

I simply can't shake the feeling that American is a bit slimy. As I suggested before and others have also pointed out, American hasn't really done much here in the Pacific NW and specifically at PDX. I think any consumer who is paying attention will make note of those carriers who bring quality, innovative and supportive airline service to a community. In my opinion here in Portland...American does not make that list.


I just took my first American flight in 30 years. It will be my last. (Sitting in CLT after missing connection by 5 minutes.)
Next: AS PDX-OGG-PDX
DL PDX-LHR-PDX
 
N174UA
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:35 pm

pdxav8r wrote:
Going back to the possibility of DL not getting the PDX-HND slot (and possible, eventual cancellation). Many correctly state JL would be perfect with the AS connection on one end. But looking a little deeper, with NH being pretty dominant in Japan right now, NH might be the eventual one to fill the hole, hypothetically. When you consider NH flies N/S from SJC to NRT with no partner on the US side (anything sizeable), they might not be the dark horse people are making them out to be. With JL being timid in adding US routes, and just adding SEA, NH might be that carrier that ends up picking up PDX-TYO, if it comes to that. Also, as US airlines have produced their ‘wish list’, have the Japanese carriers produced theirs? As far as I have seen, the split of the possible wants by airlines have only come by US airlines. Please correct me if I missed it.


JL would be the more logical choice, given the AS route network that could support it on the PDX end. That said, JL is only just restarting their SEA flight, and already serves SFO and LAX on the west coast, and maybe even SAN. Not impossible, but NH would be a long shot, given the very small Star Alliance presence in Portland. Not too many ongoing connections on UA in PDX these days. NH already serves SEA, SFO, SJC, LAX, and also YVR to the north.

DL has made a very strong case for PDX-HND, and their commitment to Portland and the growing business relationship between Oregon and Japan speaks volumes, much more so than LAS-HND (the "gamblers express" as I like to think of it as) can. If PDX-HND doesn't materialize, then I think it would be a while before PDX gets another Japan flight, but DL in my view would quickly apply for PDX-ICN.

I haven't seen the wish list for the Japanese carriers, it may be available somewhere. Not sure if the DOT has a say in how those 12 slots get awarded for flights to the USA. My guess though would be that both JL and NH would seek to strengthen their existing connections by moving flights from NRT to HND as well, such as SEA-NRT for example. Currently, NH and (soon) JL serve NRT-SEA, and would want to move it to HND assuming that DL moves their SEA-NRT flight to HND.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 17

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos