jplatts wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

United still doesn’t even fly year round to IAD. PDX needs unserved routes filled and I doubt United will provide anything there.

While AS doesn't currently serve IAD nonstop from PDX, AS could add PDX-IAD nonstop service since AS already serves IAD.

And if Alaska did, United would drop that route in a flash. But that’s not what we want or need.

Looks like Delta/Portland made the cut for Haneda.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0079

jbpdx wrote:

Looks like Delta/Portland made the cut for Haneda.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0079

This is great news!

Now we need ICN for connections and we’re set to Asia for a while!

Also, saw condor depart today.
That makes it the first 4x Europe departure day of year. Love seeing all those birds coming and going!!

AS737MAX wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

Looks like Delta/Portland made the cut for Haneda.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0079

This is great news!

Delta will be using the 234-passenger A332 with 34 flat-bed Delta One seats, 32 Delta Comfort+ seats, and 168 Economy seats. Daily, year round.
Will be interesting to see if they add a few new (unserved CVG, MSY) nonstops into PDX to help fill it.

^^^
With a hub in SEA they are trying to make profitable... as much as I wish, I doubt they will flow traffic via PDX.

Someone noted it was the last flight of the day to Tokyo for them, so, anything is possible.

But I assume it will survive on O&D only and with Nike and some others filling up the front seats.

BlatantEcho wrote:

^^^
With a hub in SEA they are trying to make profitable... as much as I wish, I doubt they will flow traffic via PDX.

Someone noted it was the last flight of the day to Tokyo for them, so, anything is possible.

But I assume it will survive on O&D only and with Nike and some others filling up the front seats.

That's true - noticed there was a Nike only line at the DL counters the other week.

jbpdx wrote:

AS737MAX wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

Looks like Delta/Portland made the cut for Haneda.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0014-0079

This is great news!

Delta will be using the 234-passenger A332 with 34 flat-bed Delta One seats, 32 Delta Comfort+ seats, and 168 Economy seats. Daily, year round.
Will be interesting to see if they add a few new (unserved CVG, MSY) nonstops into PDX to help fill it.

I wonder if RDU would ever be a possibility - I'm sure it's been mentioned internally at AS and DL given the medical research connections between OHSU/Portland and the Research Triangle. Probably easier for airlines to connect passengers over DCA/IAD/ATL/CLT but not sure what the PDEW is. Need to leave for work now but could an A220 make it in the future?

Great news on DLs PDX-HND award. While DL may try and time a flight from SLC to provide some additional connections, the expectation is clearly to concentrate mostly on OD between Portland/Tokyo.

What I will find interesting going forward is whether either of the two Japanese carriers will challenge Delta on this route with one of their new HND-USA slots. I definitely think their is a large enough market for one PDX/TYO flight, but I am not sure there is a large enough market for two daily flights.

BlatantEcho wrote:

^^^
With a hub in SEA they are trying to make profitable... as much as I wish, I doubt they will flow traffic via PDX.

Someone noted it was the last flight of the day to Tokyo for them, so, anything is possible.

But I assume it will survive on O&D only and with Nike and some others filling up the front seats.

Agreed. But, as the last arriving HND flight, it will probably serve also as a SEA reliever. DL continues to add flights between SEA and PDX, and some have been upgauged to larger aircraft, and not just to RON them, but used for mid-day flights.

Looks like DL anticipated the allocation on HND.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-12may19/.

From the DL thread.

kavok wrote:

Great news on DLs PDX-HND award. While DL may try and time a flight from SLC to provide some additional connections, the expectation is clearly to concentrate mostly on OD between Portland/Tokyo.

What I will find interesting going forward is whether either of the two Japanese carriers will challenge Delta on this route with one of their new HND-USA slots. I definitely think their is a large enough market for one PDX/TYO flight, but I am not sure there is a large enough market for two daily flights.

Will be interesting indeed. JL historically is timid in US expansion, but would make the most sense. However, not sure they want to eat at the SEA draw via AS. If JL figures there is enough draw (with AS PDX connectivity), who knows. NH is a wild card, with only one end being a hub for connections. UA won’t provide crap on the PDX end, and would be heavily reliant on O&D. KE to ICN would be the next logical step, but probably not in the short term.

One thing we haven't discussed, is how the A332 will be routed.

I don't know of any other HND routes that will use it...
So, do they route it through ATL? ATL-PDX-HND-PDX-ATL?

Or in the winter, AMS-PDX-HND-PDX-AMS?
Really curious, as it will be an orphan plane type in some ways with no logical rotation that I can think of

Pretty brief OAG update

DL PDX-SEA JAN 8>7[7] FEB 8>7[7]
UA EUG-SFO JAN 5>4[4]
UA PDX-SFO JAN 9>7[7]
WS PDX-YYC NOV 0>1.0[0] DEC 0>1.0[0] JAN 0>1.0[0] FEB 0>1.0[0] - Year Round!

BlatantEcho wrote:

One thing we haven't discussed, is how the A332 will be routed.

I don't know of any other HND routes that will use it...
So, do they route it through ATL? ATL-PDX-HND-PDX-ATL?

Or in the winter, AMS-PDX-HND-PDX-AMS?
Really curious, as it will be an orphan plane type in some ways with no logical rotation that I can think of

It's a good question, PDX-AMS-PDX has been a 763 in the low season & upgauges to an A-333 in April, it did this year & last. DL would need to make the 332 daily year round to AMS if there is no other HND route that offers the 332. I looked in April next year & no 332 to any domestic city, a 763 to LHR, 333 to AMS, DL has no other widebody routes out of PDX scheduled yet.

^^
Selfishly, I hope in 2020 they announce PDX-ICN. And it does ICN-PDX-HND-PDX-ICN
Or, they could go year round to London and upgauge that plane... LHR-PDX-HND-PDX-LHR

I can dream right?


Honestly though, otherwise it's got to rotate through ATL right?
There aren't many other options here.

BlatantEcho wrote:

^^
Selfishly, I hope in 2020 they announce PDX-ICN. And it does ICN-PDX-HND-PDX-ICN
Or, they could go year round to London and upgauge that plane... LHR-PDX-HND-PDX-LHR

I can dream right?


Honestly though, otherwise it's got to rotate through ATL right?
There aren't many other options here.

Would it have to rotate? I was checking Flighttracker, and the two 763 aircraft that serve PDX-LHR and PDX-NRT flies back and forth between the two cities each day. I read on here a while ago that the international routes from PDX on DL are worked by PDX-based crews exclusively.

I think ICN is a long way off, especially now that the PDX-Tokyo route future has been determined with the PDX-HND route authority. DL's focus now is to keep that flight full daily year round once it starts, and will be a SEA and LAX reliever, as well as fed by SLC. The PDX-HND flight will leave at approx. 14:15, three hours later than PDX-NRT, so it can pick up pax that are more budget-conscious and willing to connect.

As far as competition goes from either NH or JL on the PDX-HND route: JL is more likely, but they just restarted SEA-NRT, and will presumably move it to HND also, and will have to compete against DL and NH in SEA. I think the PDX-TYO market would have to double in size before JL or NH would consider PDX and taking on well-established DL service.

^^^
In your NRT and LHR examples, delta has multiple 763 flights into both stations. So they can route a plane HNL-NRT-PDX-NRT-SIN, etc.

Delta has no other A330-200s currently planned for HND. Additionally, there are no other A330-200 routes for PDX. So the exact same tail number would have to go back and forth everyday.

I don’t know any major airline that does that.
I guess it’s possible, but man, you would lose so much operational flexibility in that way.

In general they would want to rotate a tail around. Maybe they just haven’t figured that out yet, but they will need to.

My guess: in winter they upguage AMS to A332.
In summer they run A332 through London.

So winter: ams-pdx-hnd-pdx-ams
All flights A332

Summer: lhr-pdx-hnd-pdx-lhr on the A332
(AMS stays A333 in summer)

—
They can do that without adding a new station or rotating A332 from Atlanta.

Easy answer I guess is rotating through ATL, but something will have to upgauge.

BlatantEcho wrote:

^^^
In your NRT and LHR examples, delta has multiple 763 flights into both stations. So they can route a plane HNL-NRT-PDX-NRT-SIN, etc.

Delta has no other A330-200s currently planned for HND. Additionally, there are no other A330-200 routes for PDX. So the exact same tail number would have to go back and forth everyday.

I don’t know any major airline that does that.
I guess it’s possible, but man, you would lose so much operational flexibility in that way.

In general they would want to rotate a tail around. Maybe they just haven’t figured that out yet, but they will need to.

My guess: in winter they upguage AMS to A332.
In summer they run A332 through London.

So winter: ams-pdx-hnd-pdx-ams
All flights A332

Summer: lhr-pdx-hnd-pdx-lhr on the A332
(AMS stays A333 in summer)

—
They can do that without adding a new station or rotating A332 from Atlanta.

Easy answer I guess is rotating through ATL, but something will have to upgauge.

All makes sense here. I definitely could see them upgauging those two routes you mention, LHR and AMS during their peak and non peak seasons.

If DL does choose to fly the aircraft back and forth, I feel like it would make it a bit difficult if there is a huge delay on one end and/or need to swap out the aircraft due to mechanical issues or whatever it may be. I have seen Delta fly out an a rescue plane to avoid a huge delay in the past. I wonder how that would work out with this aircraft?

I think the HND add is great, but I can’t help but think about the gaping hole in Asian bound traffic. With no connections in Tokyo through Haneda, all of that traffic is funneled through SEA, SFO, etc. Even at less than daily, a carrier like KE or HU should work decently without negatively impacting the HND route?

flyoregon wrote:

I think the HND add is great, but I can’t help but think about the gaping hole in Asian bound traffic. With no connections in Tokyo through Haneda, all of that traffic is funneled through SEA, SFO, etc. Even at less than daily, a carrier like KE or HU should work decently without negatively impacting the HND route?

I’d like to see the PoP go after China Airlines to Taipei for the growing PDX-China traffic and for Asia connections in general.

jbpdx wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

I think the HND add is great, but I can’t help but think about the gaping hole in Asian bound traffic. With no connections in Tokyo through Haneda, all of that traffic is funneled through SEA, SFO, etc. Even at less than daily, a carrier like KE or HU should work decently without negatively impacting the HND route?

I’d like to see the PoP go after China Airlines to Taipei for the growing PDX-China traffic and for Asia connections in general.

There is a much larger demand for ICN from PDX, even back in the 90's DL quickly canged SEL from a NRT tag, to it's own non-stop due to heavy loads to S. Korea. I would also bet that even PEK has a larger O/D number than TPE. I expect KE (787) & HU (787) here before CI, even though CI has or does run cargo through PDX. Both of those cities offer connections onwards, just as CI does. IMHO.

RWA380 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

I think the HND add is great, but I can’t help but think about the gaping hole in Asian bound traffic. With no connections in Tokyo through Haneda, all of that traffic is funneled through SEA, SFO, etc. Even at less than daily, a carrier like KE or HU should work decently without negatively impacting the HND route?

I’d like to see the PoP go after China Airlines to Taipei for the growing PDX-China traffic and for Asia connections in general.

There is a much larger demand for ICN from PDX, even back in the 90's DL quickly canged SEL from a NRT tag, to it's own non-stop due to heavy loads to S. Korea. I would also bet that even PEK has a larger O/D number than TPE. I expect KE (787) & HU (787) here before CI, even though CI has or does run cargo through PDX. Both of those cities offer connections onwards, just as CI does. IMHO.

I personally think KE makes the most sense followed by HU...although that one seems like a distant wish now. Just a couple of years ago I would have bet they would start up PDX. Now I’m not so sure.

flyoregon wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

I’d like to see the PoP go after China Airlines to Taipei for the growing PDX-China traffic and for Asia connections in general.

There is a much larger demand for ICN from PDX, even back in the 90's DL quickly canged SEL from a NRT tag, to it's own non-stop due to heavy loads to S. Korea. I would also bet that even PEK has a larger O/D number than TPE. I expect KE (787) & HU (787) here before CI, even though CI has or does run cargo through PDX. Both of those cities offer connections onwards, just as CI does. IMHO.

I personally think KE makes the most sense followed by HU...although that one seems like a distant wish now. Just a couple of years ago I would have bet they would start up PDX. Now I’m not so sure.

Things have definately changed for the worse in the past few years, in regards to trade. Which would be the backbone of a PEK route. If trade conditions improve in the future, then we may see an HU tail here in less than a decade. But a direct flight to ICN is overdue, IMO. I would not be surprised if DL tried the market once again, or it's partner KE. I am sure the KE 787 provides a very nice journey.

RWA380 wrote:

Things have definately changed for the worse in the past few years, in regards to trade. Which would be the backbone of a PEK route. If trade conditions improve in the future, then we may see an HU tail here in less than a decade. But a direct flight to ICN is overdue, IMO. I would not be surprised if DL tried the market once again, or it's partner KE. I am sure the KE 787 provides a very nice journey.

CX is doing great with cargo at PDX, but that didn’t help get passenger seats to HKG...

According to Travel Oregon, there are more tourists to Oregon from greater China now than from Japan.

RWA380 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

I think the HND add is great, but I can’t help but think about the gaping hole in Asian bound traffic. With no connections in Tokyo through Haneda, all of that traffic is funneled through SEA, SFO, etc. Even at less than daily, a carrier like KE or HU should work decently without negatively impacting the HND route?

I’d like to see the PoP go after China Airlines to Taipei for the growing PDX-China traffic and for Asia connections in general.

There is a much larger demand for ICN from PDX, even back in the 90's DL quickly canged SEL from a NRT tag, to it's own non-stop due to heavy loads to S. Korea. I would also bet that even PEK has a larger O/D number than TPE. I expect KE (787) & HU (787) here before CI, even though CI has or does run cargo through PDX. Both of those cities offer connections onwards, just as CI does. IMHO.

You have to remember, as PDX was DL’s Asia hub, PDX had a bunch of domestic flights inbound, timed for the Asian bank. So I’m not sure you can assume flights to Korea 20 years later, and without the timed domestic feed they had, equates to success to SEL today. I would say, it may work today, based solely on the fact the HND flight will be strictly O&D, with no options onward. But again, that may be DL’s hitch, getting all other connecting traffic from PDX over to SEA or LAX to other Asian stations. Doesn’t DL use a 763 SEA-SEL? Granted there are 3 carriers on the route.

pdxav8r wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

I’d like to see the PoP go after China Airlines to Taipei for the growing PDX-China traffic and for Asia connections in general.

There is a much larger demand for ICN from PDX, even back in the 90's DL quickly canged SEL from a NRT tag, to it's own non-stop due to heavy loads to S. Korea. I would also bet that even PEK has a larger O/D number than TPE. I expect KE (787) & HU (787) here before CI, even though CI has or does run cargo through PDX. Both of those cities offer connections onwards, just as CI does. IMHO.

You have to remember, as PDX was DL’s Asia hub, PDX had a bunch of domestic flights inbound, timed for the Asian bank. So I’m not sure you can assume flights to Korea 20 years later, and without the timed domestic feed they had, equates to success to SEL today. I would say, it may work today, based solely on the fact the HND flight will be strictly O&D, with no options onward. But again, that may be DL’s hitch, getting all other connecting traffic from PDX over to SEA or LAX to other Asian stations. Doesn’t DL use a 763 SEA-SEL? Granted there are 3 carriers on the route.

In the '90s, DL operated PDX-SEL (Gimpo Int'l.) with L1011 and later MD-11. When the PDX hub was dropped circa 2001, that flight among others were dropped. Since then, Incheon (ICN) opened and is now the primary international airport serving Seoul.

Yes...DL uses a 763 on SEA-ICN today, and competes with OZ (777 and A330) and also KE (777) on the route. Can all three serve it profitably? I don't know. I do know from the other thread that OZ has serious financial issues, so would they leave the SEA market? Time will tell.

If PDX saw service to ICN, it would likely be on DL metal, and probably not for a while. Getting one of the HND slots was a huge win for PDX, and with that going daily year round, and also maintaining AMS and developing the LHR route, i would be surprised to see DL adding ICN.

pdxav8r wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

I’d like to see the PoP go after China Airlines to Taipei for the growing PDX-China traffic and for Asia connections in general.

There is a much larger demand for ICN from PDX, even back in the 90's DL quickly canged SEL from a NRT tag, to it's own non-stop due to heavy loads to S. Korea. I would also bet that even PEK has a larger O/D number than TPE. I expect KE (787) & HU (787) here before CI, even though CI has or does run cargo through PDX. Both of those cities offer connections onwards, just as CI does. IMHO.

You have to remember, as PDX was DL’s Asia hub, PDX had a bunch of domestic flights inbound, timed for the Asian bank. So I’m not sure you can assume flights to Korea 20 years later, and without the timed domestic feed they had, equates to success to SEL today. I would say, it may work today, based solely on the fact the HND flight will be strictly O&D, with no options onward. But again, that may be DL’s hitch, getting all other connecting traffic from PDX over to SEA or LAX to other Asian stations. Doesn’t DL use a 763 SEA-SEL? Granted there are 3 carriers on the route.

Actually I was managing an office for Azumano travel at the USBancorp building or "big pink" for years & Azumano owns Pacific Gateway travel, the largest wholesaler for DL in the 90's on their T-PAC routes. We had quite a bit of LF info provided by DL to us. I can assure you that I am not assuming. I try pretty hard to keep my comments based upon experience & I avoid talking out of my ass.

SEL was the second city added in Asia, it originated as a tag off of the NRT flight. It wasn't even quite a year & NRT & SEL had seperate aircraft because of the demand. Both operated on the L15. This was during DL's domestic buildup at PDX, but SEL was a hit before the hub even got into full motion. Indeed there were connecting flights via PDX, but no where near, what it ended up being.

The contraction at PDX widened in April. First negative number for domestic I can remember.
Frontier dropped from 122 total flights to 66. JetBlue dropped from 180 flights to 120. Southwest cut from 2,412 flights to 2,192. Spirit reduced flights from 146 to 120. Alaska (excluding Horizon) traffic was down 3.6% with flights cut from 3,328 to 2,988.
Meanwhile, Delta traffic was up 17.5% and flights increased from 1,108 flights to 1,342. Volaris was up 36.3% on an increase of flights from 34 to 42.

PDX Portland International Airport
April 2019

Domestic. 1,497,537 -1.5%
International. 58,336 -0.8%
Total. 1,555,873. -1.5%


Cathay Pacific Cargo. +1.9%

(compared with 2018)

On the monthly traffic report, what airlines are "major" and what airlines are "national"?

ooslc wrote:

On the monthly traffic report, what airlines are "major" and what airlines are "national"?

“Major airlines generate operating revenues of more than $1 billion annually... National carriers are scheduled airlines with annual operating revenues between $100 million and $1 billion.”

https://www.avjobs.com/history/structur ... dustry.asp

jbpdx wrote:

The contraction at PDX widened in April. First negative number for domestic I can remember.
Frontier dropped from 122 total flights to 66. JetBlue dropped from 180 flights to 120. Southwest cut from 2,412 flights to 2,192. Spirit reduced flights from 146 to 120. Alaska (excluding Horizon) traffic was down 3.6% with flights cut from 3,328 to 2,988.
Meanwhile, Delta traffic was up 17.5% and flights increased from 1,108 flights to 1,342. Volaris was up 36.3% on an increase of flights from 34 to 42.

PDX Portland International Airport
April 2019

Domestic. 1,497,537 -1.5%
International. 58,336 -0.8%
Total. 1,555,873. -1.5%


Cathay Pacific Cargo. +1.9%

(compared with 2018)

I've noticed that the monthly PDX traffic reports list Compass and SkyWest in the passenger breakdown for departing and arriving numbers. Unless someone can clarify I believe that the "true" Delta numbers may not accurately represent their total passenger numbers...example Compass or SkyWest operated E175 Delta Connection flights. If there is an accurate depiction of those numbers then Delta would be far exceeding United and pushing towards Southwest in terms of total monthly/annual passengers.

On a side note...Volaris needs to pull the trigger and step into the void left by Aeromexico when they exited the PDX-MEX market.

jbpdx wrote:

The contraction at PDX widened in April. First negative number for domestic I can remember.
Frontier dropped from 122 total flights to 66. JetBlue dropped from 180 flights to 120. Southwest cut from 2,412 flights to 2,192. Spirit reduced flights from 146 to 120. Alaska (excluding Horizon) traffic was down 3.6% with flights cut from 3,328 to 2,988.
Meanwhile, Delta traffic was up 17.5% and flights increased from 1,108 flights to 1,342. Volaris was up 36.3% on an increase of flights from 34 to 42.

PDX Portland International Airport
April 2019

Domestic. 1,497,537 -1.5%
International. 58,336 -0.8%
Total. 1,555,873. -1.5%


Cathay Pacific Cargo. +1.9%

(compared with 2018)

Makes sense domestically, especially with WN, AA and the MAX issues. Internationally too with AM gone. But certainly the daily DL to LHR will boost the international numbers for the year, as well as the new YYC service with WestJet. However, the late start for AC to YYZ (MAX issue again) will ding it a little.

Total flights at PDX for the month of April dropped to 14,094 from 14,874 in April 2018. Hard to believe with the population growth and a relatively booming economy. The port has a lot of work to do to reverse this.

jbpdx wrote:

Total flights at PDX for the month of April dropped to 14,094 from 14,874 in April 2018. Hard to believe with the population growth and a relatively booming economy. The port has a lot of work to do to reverse this.

Is it really the Port, or is it that the population isn't supporting the flights they have?

jbpdx wrote:

Total flights at PDX for the month of April dropped to 14,094 from 14,874 in April 2018. Hard to believe with the population growth and a relatively booming economy. The port has a lot of work to do to reverse this.

So first, not sure where you're getting those numbers. According to the report, there were 18,283 total flights and 15,890 commercial flights in April 2019. Commercial flight ops were down 3.6% (commensurate with known reductions and MAX takedowns), but enplaned passengers were only down 1.5%. That means that a) relative load factors were up, b) average gauge probably increased, and c) some unsustainable flights were culled. Which one of those is a failure that the port needs to work on?

Flight operations are a pretty lousy gauge of how well an airport does. I think I'd rather have fewer operations of larger jets than many operations of smaller aircraft -- more airfield capacity to spare, and fewer Qs to endure.

flashmeister wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

Total flights at PDX for the month of April dropped to 14,094 from 14,874 in April 2018. Hard to believe with the population growth and a relatively booming economy. The port has a lot of work to do to reverse this.

So first, not sure where you're getting those numbers. According to the report, there were 18,283 total flights and 15,890 commercial flights in April 2019. Commercial flight ops were down 3.6% (commensurate with known reductions and MAX takedowns), but enplaned passengers were only down 1.5%. That means that a) relative load factors were up, b) average gauge probably increased, and c) some unsustainable flights were culled. Which one of those is a failure that the port needs to work on?

Flight operations are a pretty lousy gauge of how well an airport does. I think I'd rather have fewer operations of larger jets than many operations of smaller aircraft -- more airfield capacity to spare, and fewer Qs to endure.

The numbers are correct (page 3). I’m referring to scheduled passenger flights not including cargo-only. =5.2% reduction in flights.
Frontier, JetBlue and Spirit are down to a handful of flights daily. Southwest and American cut. Aeromexico pulled out. Everyone but Delta and Sun Country seems to think PDX is Alaska’s domain so they are hesitant to expand, and even pull back. Then Alaska cuts.

Upgauges? To what by which airlines? This is 737, E175 and Q400 country. Also, not many 737MAXs were ever deployed to PDX, so this doesn’t explain the reduction of 780 flights. This is a lack of commitment to PDX by the several airlines, and it seems to be taking a toll on ridership.

Honestly, I would argue DL doesn't give a sh!t about PDX. Sure they probably make a little bonus cash & yes, they have history at PDX too but they would much rather allocate their resources elsewhere. Their PDX network is just enough to fend off/keep competition in check. PDX helps them either lose a little less or make a little extra cash while protecting their nimble (compared to UA/Star & AA/oneworld) west coast international market.

DL knows PDX isn't strong enough for many players and PAX would rather fly PDX-Connect in Asia-Asia Destination rather than PDX-SEA-Asia Destination. Image what kind of dent it would put in their ambitious SEA OPS if an Asian carrier (JL/HU/CZ/maybe CX) teamed up with AS and started PDX - there would be connection opportunities at both ends; plus cargo.

The move to HND is merely to occupy a spot keeping it from someone else who could operate (as example) HND-ONT/LAS/PHX/DEN/MIA which again, would further injure DL's weaker Asia network.

jbpdx wrote:

flashmeister wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

Total flights at PDX for the month of April dropped to 14,094 from 14,874 in April 2018. Hard to believe with the population growth and a relatively booming economy. The port has a lot of work to do to reverse this.

So first, not sure where you're getting those numbers. According to the report, there were 18,283 total flights and 15,890 commercial flights in April 2019. Commercial flight ops were down 3.6% (commensurate with known reductions and MAX takedowns), but enplaned passengers were only down 1.5%. That means that a) relative load factors were up, b) average gauge probably increased, and c) some unsustainable flights were culled. Which one of those is a failure that the port needs to work on?

Flight operations are a pretty lousy gauge of how well an airport does. I think I'd rather have fewer operations of larger jets than many operations of smaller aircraft -- more airfield capacity to spare, and fewer Qs to endure.

The numbers are correct (page 3). I’m referring to scheduled passenger flights not including cargo-only. =5.2% reduction in flights.
Frontier, JetBlue and Spirit are down to a handful of flights daily. Southwest and American cut. Aeromexico pulled out. Everyone but Delta and Sun Country seems to think PDX is Alaska’s domain so they are hesitant to expand, and even pull back. Then Alaska cuts.

Upgauges? To what by which airlines? This is 737, E175 and Q400 country. Also, not many 737MAXs were ever deployed to PDX, so this doesn’t explain the reduction of 780 flights. This is a lack of commitment to PDX by the several airlines, and it seems to be taking a toll on ridership.

Just because PDX didn't see a lot of MAX flights doesn't mean that an entire network won't be impacted. AA and WN specifically needed 738's to go on more important/profitable routes that were specifically impacted by MAX cuts.

Portland is doing just fine with service. Airlines are adjusting to make their networks efficient and profitable. I really don't think airlines look at Portland and choose to ignore it. I think they're looking at the market and the market is slowing in their response. It's the basic economic formula of supply and demand. Airlines have gotten a lot smarter the last 15 years and are far more efficient than they use to be.

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Honestly, I would argue DL doesn't give a sh!t about PDX. Sure they probably make a little bonus cash & yes, they have history at PDX too but they would much rather allocate their resources elsewhere. Their PDX network is just enough to fend off/keep competition in check. PDX helps them either lose a little less or make a little extra cash while protecting their nimble (compared to UA/Star & AA/oneworld) west coast international market.

DL knows PDX isn't strong enough for many players and PAX would rather fly PDX-Connect in Asia-Asia Destination rather than PDX-SEA-Asia Destination. Image what kind of dent it would put in their ambitious SEA OPS if an Asian carrier (JL/HU/CZ/maybe CX) teamed up with AS and started PDX - there would be connection opportunities at both ends; plus cargo.

The move to HND is merely to occupy a spot keeping it from someone else who could operate (as example) HND-ONT/LAS/PHX/DEN/MIA which again, would further injure DL's weaker Asia network.

Interesting that you specifically comment on Delta. I won't debate you...however it's likely that you're basing your comments on nothing other than your personal opinions and clearly nothing fact based. Funny how you don't mention legacy carriers American or United in Portland...as I would be far more inclined to agree that those two carriers don't "give a sh!t about PDX" (your quote regarding DL). American has never committed anything beyond a handful of flights to it's main hubs from PDX (notably no service history to MIA or JFK) and what they offer seasonally to PHL and CLT are laughable. United has been drawing down PDX since the exit of United Express from the Pacific NW (trust me, I was the Station Manager in SEA).

At least DL has an international commitment at PDX...and one that defies operating practice in almost every other DL city in the US. How many DL non-hub cities see DL metal to three international cities? DL also is the only carrier that sees fit to make smart adjustments for operational purposes in peak travel seasons. When was the last time you saw a United or American wide body aircraft performing a scheduled flight out of PDX???

Just my thoughts.

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Honestly, I would argue DL doesn't give a sh!t about PDX. Sure they probably make a little bonus cash & yes, they have history at PDX too but they would much rather allocate their resources elsewhere. Their PDX network is just enough to fend off/keep competition in check. PDX helps them either lose a little less or make a little extra cash while protecting their nimble (compared to UA/Star & AA/oneworld) west coast international market.

DL knows PDX isn't strong enough for many players and PAX would rather fly PDX-Connect in Asia-Asia Destination rather than PDX-SEA-Asia Destination. Image what kind of dent it would put in their ambitious SEA OPS if an Asian carrier (JL/HU/CZ/maybe CX) teamed up with AS and started PDX - there would be connection opportunities at both ends; plus cargo.

The move to HND is merely to occupy a spot keeping it from someone else who could operate (as example) HND-ONT/LAS/PHX/DEN/MIA which again, would further injure DL's weaker Asia network.

Interesting that you specifically comment on Delta. I won't debate you...however it's likely that you're basing your comments on nothing other than your personal opinions and clearly nothing fact based. Funny how you don't mention legacy carriers American or United in Portland...as I would be far more inclined to agree that those two carriers don't "give a sh!t about PDX" (your quote regarding DL). American has never committed anything beyond a handful of flights to it's main hubs from PDX (notably no service history to MIA or JFK) and what they offer seasonally to PHL and CLT are laughable. United has been drawing down PDX since the exit of United Express from the Pacific NW (trust me, I was the Station Manager in SEA).

At least DL has an international commitment at PDX...and one that defies operating practice in almost every other DL city in the US. How many DL non-hub cities see DL metal to three international cities? DL also is the only carrier that sees fit to make smart adjustments for operational purposes in peak travel seasons. When was the last time you saw a United or American wide body aircraft performing a scheduled flight out of PDX???

Just my thoughts.

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Honestly, I would argue DL doesn't give a sh!t about PDX. Sure they probably make a little bonus cash & yes, they have history at PDX too but they would much rather allocate their resources elsewhere. Their PDX network is just enough to fend off/keep competition in check. PDX helps them either lose a little less or make a little extra cash while protecting their nimble (compared to UA/Star & AA/oneworld) west coast international market.

DL knows PDX isn't strong enough for many players and PAX would rather fly PDX-Connect in Asia-Asia Destination rather than PDX-SEA-Asia Destination. Image what kind of dent it would put in their ambitious SEA OPS if an Asian carrier (JL/HU/CZ/maybe CX) teamed up with AS and started PDX - there would be connection opportunities at both ends; plus cargo.

The move to HND is merely to occupy a spot keeping it from someone else who could operate (as example) HND-ONT/LAS/PHX/DEN/MIA which again, would further injure DL's weaker Asia network.

Honestly, I would argue that you have next to no knowledge about a.) the PDX market in general and b.) even less knowledge about airline revenue management and route planning. To paraphrase, you clearly don't give a $hit about facts when posting on a-net on topics like these, based on what you wrote. Did DL lose your bag once or re-route you unexpectedly? Yikes.

DL is the top dog in PDX...they know it. And they *DO* give a s--t because they are clearly growing there, they have noticeably increased their international presence and maintained it, and they have a large, loyal base of customers in the PDX market, some of which came over from NW. DL knows exactly what they are doing, and meeting the demand very, very accurately. DL, and other established, profitable airlines engage in what is known as "game theory"...knowing what their market position is and that of their competitors, and then anticipating what their rivals next logical step would be, and then making a move to stop their rival or potential rivals.

Example? Take the PDX-LHR route. DL saw no other US or UK carrier was entering the market, so they started with seasonal, summer only, a few days a week. That went well, but sitll no entry from a rival on that route. The closest would be Icelandair, with a stop in KEF, but Icelandair still hasn't committed year-round, daily service to KEF with connections to Europe. So then DL upped their game and made PDX-LHR DAILY, but still for the summer season. No clear rival yet...and the chance now there ever will be is declining. Another year or two of market development, and PDX-LHR will be daily year-round, or very close to it. Someone at British Airways was asleep at the switch when it came to PDX...they could have put on a 787 on it, but didn't, and now they are on the outside looking in. The PDX-London market would have to double or triple overnight to support another entrant, and that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

The same concept applies to HND. DL knows the PDX market, and how it ties in with their operation in SEA. Airlines like JL and NH may have looked at PDX once or twice, but sees who their competitor (DL) is and passes. With the new HND route, the flight will depart 3 hours later, making it the last US-HND flight of the day on DL. That basically makes the PDX-HND a reliever, especially for excess demand in SEA. Watch DL's summer 2020 schedule for PDX...look for re-timing of connections from SLC, LAX, and other cities to time with the mid-afternoon flight from PDX to HND. All other HND nonstops leave at 11:00am Local time.

As for PDX: demand is very sensitive to the performance of the local economy, much more so than larger cities in the region. The peak travel season is primarily March/April through early October. PDX fliers who travel regularly either belong to Delta SkyMiles, United Mileage Plus, or Alaska's Mileage Plan. Those fliers stay loyal to their airline to maintain their status, and the route and frequency offerings are meeting that demand. UA and AS are direct competitors on several routes; yet UA and DL really don't compete with each other at all out of PDX. I cannot understand why F9 or Spirit or JetBlue bother serving PDX at all. AA doesn't seem to care, either, and never have. UA used to be very big in PDX...even had a PDX-NRT in the 80s one day a week, and widebodies to SFO, DEN, and ORD. But in the 90's, they really lost out to WN and AS on the predominant flight pattern out of PDX: other west-coast destinations like SFO and LAX. WN and AS simply beat out UA with lower prices and more flights.

N174UA - I think that's a damn good summary of things at PDX.

I switched from AS (75K) to DL (Plat) primarily because Delta can get me anywhere in the US in one stop.
They can also do the same for most of Europe actually too.
And someday they will do it for Asia.

They run a timely operation, I pay a fair price, and their operations are excellent.
Do I wish they ran 4x daily to JFK, or had better times to DTW. Yup.
But man, I consider what we have REALLY good, and I love giving them my money to take me places.

BlatantEcho wrote:

N174UA - I think that's a damn good summary of things at PDX.

I switched from AS (75K) to DL (Plat) primarily because Delta can get me anywhere in the US in one stop.
They can also do the same for most of Europe actually too.
And someday they will do it for Asia.

They run a timely operation, I pay a fair price, and their operations are excellent.
Do I wish they ran 4x daily to JFK, or had better times to DTW. Yup.
But man, I consider what we have REALLY good, and I love giving them my money to take me places.

Thanks! I've been following the PDX market for a number of years, and am also familiar with SEA/PAE, and now PSC, which is my home airport. Flew AS for a number of years but never reached any status. Had a few bad experiences, and made the switch over to DL about 2 1/12 years ago. I'm Silver Medallion now and close to Gold, and fly DL exclusively....they have a great operation here in PSC, and I try to always connect in SLC. I cringe now at having to go through SEA. I flew SEA-NRT last October, and look forward soon to trying PDX-HND!

bigfoot0503 wrote:

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Honestly, I would argue DL doesn't give a sh!t about PDX. Sure they probably make a little bonus cash & yes, they have history at PDX too but they would much rather allocate their resources elsewhere. Their PDX network is just enough to fend off/keep competition in check. PDX helps them either lose a little less or make a little extra cash while protecting their nimble (compared to UA/Star & AA/oneworld) west coast international market.

DL knows PDX isn't strong enough for many players and PAX would rather fly PDX-Connect in Asia-Asia Destination rather than PDX-SEA-Asia Destination. Image what kind of dent it would put in their ambitious SEA OPS if an Asian carrier (JL/HU/CZ/maybe CX) teamed up with AS and started PDX - there would be connection opportunities at both ends; plus cargo.

The move to HND is merely to occupy a spot keeping it from someone else who could operate (as example) HND-ONT/LAS/PHX/DEN/MIA which again, would further injure DL's weaker Asia network.

Interesting that you specifically comment on Delta. I won't debate you...however it's likely that you're basing your comments on nothing other than your personal opinions and clearly nothing fact based. Funny how you don't mention legacy carriers American or United in Portland...as I would be far more inclined to agree that those two carriers don't "give a sh!t about PDX" (your quote regarding DL). American has never committed anything beyond a handful of flights to it's main hubs from PDX (notably no service history to MIA or JFK) and what they offer seasonally to PHL and CLT are laughable. United has been drawing down PDX since the exit of United Express from the Pacific NW (trust me, I was the Station Manager in SEA).

At least DL has an international commitment at PDX...and one that defies operating practice in almost every other DL city in the US. How many DL non-hub cities see DL metal to three international cities? DL also is the only carrier that sees fit to make smart adjustments for operational purposes in peak travel seasons. When was the last time you saw a United or American wide body aircraft performing a scheduled flight out of PDX???

Just my thoughts.

Exactly, couldn’t have said it better myself. Kudos to N174UA as well. Astute observations and facts. As for commenters speaking about an airline’s ‘love’ for a city is ridiculous. Take all emotions out of it. They are a business, and run it as such. They go where the money is, and protect their territory. I will only add, AA to CLT is year round now, but not always daily off-season. PHL runs about 3, maybe 4 months at best.

N174UA wrote:

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Honestly, I would argue DL doesn't give a sh!t about PDX. Sure they probably make a little bonus cash & yes, they have history at PDX too but they would much rather allocate their resources elsewhere. Their PDX network is just enough to fend off/keep competition in check. PDX helps them either lose a little less or make a little extra cash while protecting their nimble (compared to UA/Star & AA/oneworld) west coast international market.

DL knows PDX isn't strong enough for many players and PAX would rather fly PDX-Connect in Asia-Asia Destination rather than PDX-SEA-Asia Destination. Image what kind of dent it would put in their ambitious SEA OPS if an Asian carrier (JL/HU/CZ/maybe CX) teamed up with AS and started PDX - there would be connection opportunities at both ends; plus cargo.

The move to HND is merely to occupy a spot keeping it from someone else who could operate (as example) HND-ONT/LAS/PHX/DEN/MIA which again, would further injure DL's weaker Asia network.

Honestly, I would argue that you have next to no knowledge about a.) the PDX market in general and b.) even less knowledge about airline revenue management and route planning. To paraphrase, you clearly don't give a $hit about facts when posting on a-net on topics like these, based on what you wrote. Did DL lose your bag once or re-route you unexpectedly? Yikes.

DL is the top dog in PDX...they know it. And they *DO* give a s--t because they are clearly growing there, they have noticeably increased their international presence and maintained it, and they have a large, loyal base of customers in the PDX market, some of which came over from NW. DL knows exactly what they are doing, and meeting the demand very, very accurately. DL, and other established, profitable airlines engage in what is known as "game theory"...knowing what their market position is and that of their competitors, and then anticipating what their rivals next logical step would be, and then making a move to stop their rival or potential rivals.

Example? Take the PDX-LHR route. DL saw no other US or UK carrier was entering the market, so they started with seasonal, summer only, a few days a week. That went well, but sitll no entry from a rival on that route. The closest would be Icelandair, with a stop in KEF, but Icelandair still hasn't committed year-round, daily service to KEF with connections to Europe. So then DL upped their game and made PDX-LHR DAILY, but still for the summer season. No clear rival yet...and the chance now there ever will be is declining. Another year or two of market development, and PDX-LHR will be daily year-round, or very close to it. Someone at British Airways was asleep at the switch when it came to PDX...they could have put on a 787 on it, but didn't, and now they are on the outside looking in. The PDX-London market would have to double or triple overnight to support another entrant, and that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

The same concept applies to HND. DL knows the PDX market, and how it ties in with their operation in SEA. Airlines like JL and NH may have looked at PDX once or twice, but sees who their competitor (DL) is and passes. With the new HND route, the flight will depart 3 hours later, making it the last US-HND flight of the day on DL. That basically makes the PDX-HND a reliever, especially for excess demand in SEA. Watch DL's summer 2020 schedule for PDX...look for re-timing of connections from SLC, LAX, and other cities to time with the mid-afternoon flight from PDX to HND. All other HND nonstops leave at 11:00am Local time.

As for PDX: demand is very sensitive to the performance of the local economy, much more so than larger cities in the region. The peak travel season is primarily March/April through early October. PDX fliers who travel regularly either belong to Delta SkyMiles, United Mileage Plus, or Alaska's Mileage Plan. Those fliers stay loyal to their airline to maintain their status, and the route and frequency offerings are meeting that demand. UA and AS are direct competitors on several routes; yet UA and DL really don't compete with each other at all out of PDX. I cannot understand why F9 or Spirit or JetBlue bother serving PDX at all. AA doesn't seem to care, either, and never have. UA used to be very big in PDX...even had a PDX-NRT in the 80s one day a week, and widebodies to SFO, DEN, and ORD. But in the 90's, they really lost out to WN and AS on the predominant flight pattern out of PDX: other west-coast destinations like SFO and LAX. WN and AS simply beat out UA with lower prices and more flights.

First and foremost at no point did I compliment &/or complain, applaud &/or criticize DL's service, employees, management/leadership style, or operation(s). I merely gave an argument about DL's strategy in/at/with PDX, the Pacific NW, and their west cost international network.

Secondly, many of the statements (or "defenses") of DL you make - especially about their PDX-European service - only underscore the points I was making. Thank you, glad we could agree.

Thirdly, regarding HND/Japan:

-You can't believe for one split second DL would rather fly PDX-HND-PDX opposed SEA-HND-SEA. DL threw PDX in there because they knew its chances were much stronger. Again, its strategy about occupying a slot a competitor now cannot use/have. It's NOT about giving PDX "love", growing PDX into an international gateway, serving its PDX loyal customers, or making it a reliever.

-Why would anybody fly LAX-PDX-HND when DL already flies LAX-HND separate of two other carriers both of which have much stronger Star and oneworld relationships? AND, especially since DL serves LAX-HND with its flagship A359.

-Are you sure the HND time slot was DL's choice and they were not told?

-Who cares if it leaves 3 hours later? Unless you love to fly, why would you want to travel for those extra 3 hours to make a connection? By that I mean if you have to connect LAX-PDX-HND, you have to leave at the same time as the non-stop LAX-HND. So, in short, you actually arrive into HND 3 hours later than everybody else plus had to make a connection.

-The amount of folks in SEA who connect PDX-HND will be marginal at best, they have many other options to Japan (to include DL's A359) and the rest of Asia.

Lastly, DL and UA do compete directly. The question is are you going to go to Europe/Asia via North to SEA or South to SFO. Either way, your a$$ is delayed.

Dreamflight767 wrote:

-You can't believe for one split second DL would rather fly PDX-HND-PDX opposed SEA-HND-SEA. DL threw PDX in there because they knew its chances were much stronger. Again, its strategy about occupying a slot a competitor now cannot use/have. It's NOT about giving PDX "love", growing PDX into an international gateway, serving its PDX loyal customers, or making it a reliever.

-The amount of folks in SEA who connect PDX-HND will be marginal at best, they have many other options to Japan (to include DL's A359) and the rest of Asia.

-Why would anybody fly LAX-PDX-HND when DL already flies LAX-HND separate of two other carriers both of which have much stronger Star and oneworld relationships? AND, especially since DL serves LAX-HND with its flagship A359.

Aside from some pretty tough grammar here, it seems you are unaware SEA-HND was awarded to Delta as well.
https://news.delta.com/dot-tentatively- ... -us-cities

I think this alone invalidates the majority of your arguments.

--
For the other one:
PDX-HND is not designed for people in LA/SoCal. It's designed to a) defend the Tokyo turf Delta has built over the last 10 years. b) complete the drawdown of the NRT station c) Provide Oregon businesses with a direct connection to Tokyo/Japan.

There is some *small* potential for the PDX flight for people who already have to double connect in the Mountain West (due to lack of non-stops to SEA hub). So, if you are in RAP.... and want to go to HND.... (not a crazy thought). You can just as easily do RAP-SLC-PDX-HND as you can RAP-SLC-SEA-HND.

I think the only thing people have mentioned is, with the PDX-HND flight being the last of the day, those connections are more possible, and also allow a later start for those people. I personally think it will be a small amount of folks, but, the flight is timed for it to be more than zero.

BlatantEcho wrote:

Dreamflight767 wrote:

-You can't believe for one split second DL would rather fly PDX-HND-PDX opposed SEA-HND-SEA. DL threw PDX in there because they knew its chances were much stronger. Again, its strategy about occupying a slot a competitor now cannot use/have. It's NOT about giving PDX "love", growing PDX into an international gateway, serving its PDX loyal customers, or making it a reliever.

-The amount of folks in SEA who connect PDX-HND will be marginal at best, they have many other options to Japan (to include DL's A359) and the rest of Asia.

-Why would anybody fly LAX-PDX-HND when DL already flies LAX-HND separate of two other carriers both of which have much stronger Star and oneworld relationships? AND, especially since DL serves LAX-HND with its flagship A359.

Aside from some pretty tough grammar here, it seems you are unaware SEA-HND was awarded to Delta as well.
https://news.delta.com/dot-tentatively- ... -us-cities

I think this alone invalidates the majority of your arguments.

--
For the other one:
PDX-HND is not designed for people in LA/SoCal. It's designed to a) defend the Tokyo turf Delta has built over the last 10 years. b) complete the drawdown of the NRT station c) Provide Oregon businesses with a direct connection to Tokyo/Japan.

There is some *small* potential for the PDX flight for people who already have to double connect in the Mountain West (due to lack of non-stops to SEA hub). So, if you are in RAP.... and want to go to HND.... (not a crazy thought). You can just as easily do RAP-SLC-PDX-HND as you can RAP-SLC-SEA-HND.

I think the only thing people have mentioned is, with the PDX-HND flight being the last of the day, those connections are more possible, and also allow a later start for those people. I personally think it will be a small amount of folks, but, the flight is timed for it to be more than zero.

Thank you, you are correct. I was unaware DL will fly SEA-HND-SEA. So my point is actually not too far off...SEA folk are even less likely to fly via PDX. Also, please do clarify a DL's customer connection opportunities at HND.

I stand-by my statement that the PDX slot is still just a keep-away from competition. It's necessary. And you said it best yourself: To protect their Japan turf...NOT PDX.

I would agree to your double connection statement. Except to say that a double connection isn't necessary. With DL you'll probably go via MSP with UA, ORD, & AA DFW. That's 3 options only requiring 1 connection.

Dreamflight767 wrote:

N174UA wrote:

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Honestly, I would argue DL doesn't give a sh!t about PDX. Sure they probably make a little bonus cash & yes, they have history at PDX too but they would much rather allocate their resources elsewhere. Their PDX network is just enough to fend off/keep competition in check. PDX helps them either lose a little less or make a little extra cash while protecting their nimble (compared to UA/Star & AA/oneworld) west coast international market.

DL knows PDX isn't strong enough for many players and PAX would rather fly PDX-Connect in Asia-Asia Destination rather than PDX-SEA-Asia Destination. Image what kind of dent it would put in their ambitious SEA OPS if an Asian carrier (JL/HU/CZ/maybe CX) teamed up with AS and started PDX - there would be connection opportunities at both ends; plus cargo.

The move to HND is merely to occupy a spot keeping it from someone else who could operate (as example) HND-ONT/LAS/PHX/DEN/MIA which again, would further injure DL's weaker Asia network.

Honestly, I would argue that you have next to no knowledge about a.) the PDX market in general and b.) even less knowledge about airline revenue management and route planning. To paraphrase, you clearly don't give a $hit about facts when posting on a-net on topics like these, based on what you wrote. Did DL lose your bag once or re-route you unexpectedly? Yikes.

DL is the top dog in PDX...they know it. And they *DO* give a s--t because they are clearly growing there, they have noticeably increased their international presence and maintained it, and they have a large, loyal base of customers in the PDX market, some of which came over from NW. DL knows exactly what they are doing, and meeting the demand very, very accurately. DL, and other established, profitable airlines engage in what is known as "game theory"...knowing what their market position is and that of their competitors, and then anticipating what their rivals next logical step would be, and then making a move to stop their rival or potential rivals.

Example? Take the PDX-LHR route. DL saw no other US or UK carrier was entering the market, so they started with seasonal, summer only, a few days a week. That went well, but sitll no entry from a rival on that route. The closest would be Icelandair, with a stop in KEF, but Icelandair still hasn't committed year-round, daily service to KEF with connections to Europe. So then DL upped their game and made PDX-LHR DAILY, but still for the summer season. No clear rival yet...and the chance now there ever will be is declining. Another year or two of market development, and PDX-LHR will be daily year-round, or very close to it. Someone at British Airways was asleep at the switch when it came to PDX...they could have put on a 787 on it, but didn't, and now they are on the outside looking in. The PDX-London market would have to double or triple overnight to support another entrant, and that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

The same concept applies to HND. DL knows the PDX market, and how it ties in with their operation in SEA. Airlines like JL and NH may have looked at PDX once or twice, but sees who their competitor (DL) is and passes. With the new HND route, the flight will depart 3 hours later, making it the last US-HND flight of the day on DL. That basically makes the PDX-HND a reliever, especially for excess demand in SEA. Watch DL's summer 2020 schedule for PDX...look for re-timing of connections from SLC, LAX, and other cities to time with the mid-afternoon flight from PDX to HND. All other HND nonstops leave at 11:00am Local time.

As for PDX: demand is very sensitive to the performance of the local economy, much more so than larger cities in the region. The peak travel season is primarily March/April through early October. PDX fliers who travel regularly either belong to Delta SkyMiles, United Mileage Plus, or Alaska's Mileage Plan. Those fliers stay loyal to their airline to maintain their status, and the route and frequency offerings are meeting that demand. UA and AS are direct competitors on several routes; yet UA and DL really don't compete with each other at all out of PDX. I cannot understand why F9 or Spirit or JetBlue bother serving PDX at all. AA doesn't seem to care, either, and never have. UA used to be very big in PDX...even had a PDX-NRT in the 80s one day a week, and widebodies to SFO, DEN, and ORD. But in the 90's, they really lost out to WN and AS on the predominant flight pattern out of PDX: other west-coast destinations like SFO and LAX. WN and AS simply beat out UA with lower prices and more flights.

First and foremost at no point did I compliment &/or complain, applaud &/or criticize DL's service, employees, management/leadership style, or operation(s). I merely gave an argument about DL's strategy in/at/with PDX, the Pacific NW, and their west cost international network.

Secondly, many of the statements (or "defenses") of DL you make - especially about their PDX-European service - only underscore the points I was making. Thank you, glad we could agree.

Thirdly, regarding HND/Japan:

-You can't believe for one split second DL would rather fly PDX-HND-PDX opposed SEA-HND-SEA. DL threw PDX in there because they knew its chances were much stronger. Again, its strategy about occupying a slot a competitor now cannot use/have. It's NOT about giving PDX "love", growing PDX into an international gateway, serving its PDX loyal customers, or making it a reliever.

-Why would anybody fly LAX-PDX-HND when DL already flies LAX-HND separate of two other carriers both of which have much stronger Star and oneworld relationships? AND, especially since DL serves LAX-HND with its flagship A359.

-Are you sure the HND time slot was DL's choice and they were not told?

-Who cares if it leaves 3 hours later? Unless you love to fly, why would you want to travel for those extra 3 hours to make a connection? By that I mean if you have to connect LAX-PDX-HND, you have to leave at the same time as the non-stop LAX-HND. So, in short, you actually arrive into HND 3 hours later than everybody else plus had to make a connection.

-The amount of folks in SEA who connect PDX-HND will be marginal at best, they have many other options to Japan (to include DL's A359) and the rest of Asia.

Lastly, DL and UA do compete directly. The question is are you going to go to Europe/Asia via North to SEA or South to SFO. Either way, your a$$ is delayed.

Up until maybe 2 weeks ago, Flight 68/69 (PDX-NRT) originated and terminated in LAX...with the plane change in PDX. It now originates/terminates in SLC. This is per FlightAware, and I also validated it on the DL website. Clearly, DL must have had some reason behind the routing for these two flight numbers.

For nonstop flights from PDX, UA and DL do NOT compete directly. I can't fly PDX-IAH, PDX-DEN, PDX-ORD or PDX-IAD on DL. I can't fly PDX-ATL, PDX-MSP, PDX-DTW, or PDX-JFK on UA. That is what I meant, if I was not clear enough, my apologies.

In their DOT application specific to PDX, DL offered more "flexibility" in the departure time from PDX. Currently, the flight to NRT leaves about 11:30am, but PDX-HND will leave at 2:15pm. All other flights to HND will leave at 11:00am in their respective time zones. While I don't work in DL route planning, I'll make an educated guess that DL is going to route "overflow" demand through PDX, especially from SEA, given the very short flight and easy connection. Someone in JFK or BOS or other east coast location (which DL didn't apply for HND service) can fly to SEA/MSP/PDX to HND,

The current A359 on SEA-NRT isn't going to last...it switches to the A339 in September, and will be used on the SEA-HND flight, which is what DL stated in their DOT application. DTW will have the A359, ATL will serve it with the 772.

I was looking at a sampling of AS destinations out of PDX in April 2020 and if what I saw is true , most of the current frequencies on routes will be reduced dramatically.....ANC down to 2 daily, OAK down to 2 daily, SMF down to 2 daily, SJC is down to 4 daily, BZN down to 1 daily and so on........I didn't check all of the routes but if this is truly the trajectory AS is planning to take, it is not looking good for Portland future...