RWA380 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

They'll need the MAX 10 for when they start adding these lie flat seats in FC! I'm surprised there hasn't been more hoopla about that 'rumor' of Gold 75's being invited to give them a spin!

Or the 797, which I fully expect AAG to purchase, AS will likely be a launch customer & that may be what they are looking at lie-flats for. While I know this is still years off, it's going to take a long time to time out 93 737-MAX 9's. I am betting we see any potential cabin improvements be done starting on the 737-9 flights. I think the MAX 10 will fly with AS & they'll wait for the NMA.

If Boeing is ignorant and keeps the 797 a widebody, I really don't think AS will buy it. But that airplane is starting all over again. I could definitely see some of the MAX-9 options turning into MAX-10 orders.

wedgetail737 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

They'll need the MAX 10 for when they start adding these lie flat seats in FC! I'm surprised there hasn't been more hoopla about that 'rumor' of Gold 75's being invited to give them a spin!

Or the 797, which I fully expect AAG to purchase, AS will likely be a launch customer & that may be what they are looking at lie-flats for. While I know this is still years off, it's going to take a long time to time out 93 737-MAX 9's. I am betting we see any potential cabin improvements be done starting on the 737-9 flights. I think the MAX 10 will fly with AS & they'll wait for the NMA.

If Boeing is ignorant and keeps the 797 a widebody, I really don't think AS will buy it. But that airplane is starting all over again. I could definitely see some of the MAX-9 options turning into MAX-10 orders.

From what I know, it won’t be a widebody. Like you said, the original NMA concept was shelved.

Of course A321NEOs are going away. Those will go away within a year of the last A320 going away. AS is not going to keep a sub fleet to 10 A321s.

As for 797, who knows when or if BA will launch it.

RWA380 wrote:

But seriously, what is to stop AS from capturing West Coast POS to JFK & also from ANC?

Honestly, in this situation, I think it's just themselves. They pulled SJC-EWR for example and that's a route that has very high local POS here. LAX-JFK is going to be pulled in a couple months now, and while that specific route may be very "50-50" with planes full of pax from each city, odds are that if you're flying AS, POS is much more heavily weighted towards West Coast/LA area. And with their onboard product, I'm sure they could undercut nearly every other legacy on price if they wanted to, seeing how they fly high-CASM 321s/739s to the east coast whereas the competition is premium-heavy, lower-casm 321s and 767s.

Seeing how B6 has gone into secondary and primary cities in the west with a great soft+hard product in both J & Y, I think it's safe to say that they're the ones capturing a lot of the POS here in this situation (SJC, BUR, ONT, SMF, along with heavylifters SFO/LAX/SAN/PDX/SEA) etc.

Despite this, I really don't think it's in AS's best interest to pursue more tcon routes. Let AA take care of them - in fact, AA's 321Ts and 77ws fit the specific nature of the market perfectly, while AS's lower-yield, large Y config really isn't suited for the job as well as others. This is part of the reason I'm quite skeptical about AS bringing on lieflat tcon J - they are inherently a sub-premium carrier. Not to say they do not have a good inflight experience, or decent product, it's just that if we look at many of the routes they fly (for example they are very big in Mexico and love doing low-frequency leisure) and the seat counts on planes as of right now, adding lieflats would mark a pretty deep shift in the foundation of the company itself, as well as infringe on newlywed AA's slice of the pie.

wedgetail737 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

They'll need the MAX 10 for when they start adding these lie flat seats in FC! I'm surprised there hasn't been more hoopla about that 'rumor' of Gold 75's being invited to give them a spin!

Or the 797, which I fully expect AAG to purchase, AS will likely be a launch customer & that may be what they are looking at lie-flats for. While I know this is still years off, it's going to take a long time to time out 93 737-MAX 9's. I am betting we see any potential cabin improvements be done starting on the 737-9 flights. I think the MAX 10 will fly with AS & they'll wait for the NMA.

If Boeing is ignorant and keeps the 797 a widebody, I really don't think AS will buy it. But that airplane is starting all over again. I could definitely see some of the MAX-9 options turning into MAX-10 orders.

AS would buy widebodies, just not old ones or ones too large. AS came pretty close to buying a few terrible teens 787-8's, but Boeing talked them out of it & gave them a deal on 737-900's instead.

AS isn't going to stay just West Coast forever, while this is their bread & butter, they are well aware that new opportunities await carriers willing to take some risks for profit. I could see AS flying TPAC International in a decade.

RWA380 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Would this whole concept of AS debuting a lieflat J seat impact their tcon ventures? We see them backing out of tcon bread-and-butter routes such as LAX-JFK, and I'm wondering if SFO-JFK could be next, especially since UA has started it too. If they do indeed introduce lieflat J, I wonder how it would impact their relationship with AA on these key routes if they were to restart them.

Edited for clarity

I see AS pulling out of SFO-JFK within six months for reasons similar to its planned ending of LAX-JFK-LAX. The product isn't competitive and competition is that much more acute with UA back in the JFK market with a much improved product in Polaris (mainly it's the seat). Unless AS puts lie flat beds on the MAXs and reconfigures the 321s, I see AS at JFK reduced to SEA, SAN, and PDX.

AAG invested into a new Boardroom at JFK, it's the only one outside of the Pacific time zone. AAG will find ways to remain at JFK knowing how hard it may be to get good usage from gates leased. While I don't really disagree with your assertion about PDX, SEA & SAN being three cities left, but it'll be multiple daily frequencies by then.

Don't discount AS from trying brand new things, add SJC & maybe SLC, just to screw with DL. LOL! DL would have A-350's on that route so fast. But seriously, what is to stop AS from capturing West Coast POS to JFK & also from ANC? If AS comes with a lie-flat, you can betn they'll restart LAX. I think AS will keep SFO, they route secondary MT, OR & WA cities, it's one of my options from here in RDM.

I heard from someone in AS that the A-321's are going eventually, for commonality. I'd be curious if they don't end up in Ravn's hands with their new foray into ICN, NRT out of ANC, with lower 48 connecting.
Using those limited number of frames is difficult for a single destination, they tried it with DCA

The AS Boardroom at JFK is in a terminal that is slated to be closed and demolished, with an unclear timeline but one that perhaps begins in about a year. British Airways, the anchor of T7 is relocating next year to T8. The AAG Boardroom means nothing in a terminal to be replaced with a T6 that will be anchored by B6.

Alaska Airlines has been the topic of discussions about their demise almost since time began. "AA is going to buy them, DL is going to buy them, NW is going to buy them...". "They're going to fail here and fail there" and "AS is just a little regional airline on the west coast..."

Alaska Airlines is the fifth largest airline in the United States and one of the most profitable. I have more confidence in the management at Alaska to make decisions that will continue to serve them well then I do of the armchair airline analysts here at airliners.net.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The AS Boardroom at JFK is in a terminal that is slated to be closed and demolished, with an unclear timeline but one that perhaps begins in about a year. British Airways, the anchor of T7 is relocating next year to T8. The AAG Boardroom means nothing in a terminal to be replaced with a T6 that will be anchored by B6.

True this...and there hasn't been much word about where AS is going. I'm certain it'll be to T8 with their ties to AA and BA...in fact they moved there temporarily during Covid last year. But does AA have the gates necessary to offer to AS? I assume they need at least two.

sfojvjets wrote:

And with their onboard product, I'm sure they could undercut nearly every other legacy on price if they wanted to, seeing how they fly high-CASM 321s/739s to the east coast whereas the competition is premium-heavy, lower-casm 321s and 767s.

With that statement I don't think you understand CASM.

Trip cost is going to be about the same for an AA 321 Transcon config and an AS A321, but the AA plane is going to have much higher CASM because it's splitting cost over just 102 seats versus 190 for AS.

Premium-heavy, lower CASM is virtually an oxymoron. If UA packed a 787-10 with nothing but 400 coach seats at 30" pitch it would be very low CASM, indeed, but UA configures it with 44 suites, 21 Premium Plus, 54 E+, 199Y to chase higher yield, not lower CASM.

MIflyer12 wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

And with their onboard product, I'm sure they could undercut nearly every other legacy on price if they wanted to, seeing how they fly high-CASM 321s/739s to the east coast whereas the competition is premium-heavy, lower-casm 321s and 767s.

With that statement I don't think you understand CASM.

Trip cost is going to be about the same for an AA 321 Transcon config and an AS A321, but the AA plane is going to have much higher CASM because it's splitting cost over just 102 seats versus 190 for AS.

Premium-heavy, lower CASM is virtually an oxymoron. If UA packed a 787-10 with nothing but 400 coach seats at 30" pitch it would be very low CASM, indeed, but UA configures it with 44 suites, 21 Premium Plus, 54 E+, 199Y to chase higher yield, not lower CASM.

Oops I'm sorry, I'm well aware of CASM... Just made a little switcheroo. Of course, I meant that with AS having a *lower* CASM configuration, they would be able to undercut the legacies on pricing since they can sell each seat at a lower price, while the higher CASM legacy configs are much more suited to chasing high yield traffic, as you stated. My bad, sorry for the confusion/slip of the tongue.

hiflyeras wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The AS Boardroom at JFK is in a terminal that is slated to be closed and demolished, with an unclear timeline but one that perhaps begins in about a year. British Airways, the anchor of T7 is relocating next year to T8. The AAG Boardroom means nothing in a terminal to be replaced with a T6 that will be anchored by B6.

True this...and there hasn't been much word about where AS is going. I'm certain it'll be to T8 with their ties to AA and BA...in fact they moved there temporarily during Covid last year. But does AA have the gates necessary to offer to AS? I assume they need at least two.

I do think AS will eventually end up in T8. There should be enough space for them. The section of the mid-field concourse that was dedicated to Eagle operations (far end, to the left as you head up the escalators into that concourse), is being repurposed to accommodate mainline, and several more gates (I think 4 or 6 more) are to be added at the head house, though I think those were mostly to accommodate the pre-pandemic BA schedules + IB. Either way, T8 has enough space I think to accommodate AS. I don't know exactly what T8's total handling capacity is supposed to be but AA is about 50 flights a day, maybe a little less? LATAM moved out a while back, QF isn't operating, and schedules are all reduced for now, but even at full capacity, I think AS can fit there.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The AS Boardroom at JFK is in a terminal that is slated to be closed and demolished, with an unclear timeline but one that perhaps begins in about a year. British Airways, the anchor of T7 is relocating next year to T8. The AAG Boardroom means nothing in a terminal to be replaced with a T6 that will be anchored by B6.

True this...and there hasn't been much word about where AS is going. I'm certain it'll be to T8 with their ties to AA and BA...in fact they moved there temporarily during Covid last year. But does AA have the gates necessary to offer to AS? I assume they need at least two.

I do think AS will eventually end up in T8. There should be enough space for them. The section of the mid-field concourse that was dedicated to Eagle operations (far end, to the left as you head up the escalators into that concourse), is being repurposed to accommodate mainline, and several more gates (I think 4 or 6 more) are to be added at the head house, though I think those were mostly to accommodate the pre-pandemic BA schedules + IB. Either way, T8 has enough space I think to accommodate AS. I don't know exactly what T8's total handling capacity is supposed to be but AA is about 50 flights a day, maybe a little less? LATAM moved out a while back, QF isn't operating, and schedules are all reduced for now, but even at full capacity, I think AS can fit there.

AA thread indicates it will (is planned to) be back above 100 flights at JFK later this year. Either way, its huge and there is plenty of room for AS flights, even if AS added more.

ASFlyer wrote:

Alaska Airlines has been the topic of discussions about their demise almost since time began. "AA is going to buy them, DL is going to buy them, NW is going to buy them...". "They're going to fail here and fail there" and "AS is just a little regional airline on the west coast..."

Alaska Airlines is the fifth largest airline in the United States and one of the most profitable. I have more confidence in the management at Alaska to make decisions that will continue to serve them well then I do of the armchair airline analysts here at airliners.net.

Alaska Airlines is a well run airline, yes and the wild speculation here is often ridiculous, particularly the folks who proclaim they have DoJ stats to back themselves up. I do think AS overpaid by a lot for VX and can't seem to make the key assets VX had work optimally, namely SFO, LAX, and JFK slots and share, and AS doesn't seem to have a strong offering in the premium cabin on flights where it competes in the hyper-competitive transcon market.

tphuang wrote:

Of course A321NEOs are going away. Those will go away within a year of the last A320 going away. AS is not going to keep a sub fleet to 10 A321s.

As for 797, who knows when or if BA will launch it.

They'll use those brand new 321s as a down payment for further new aircraft, if they decide to dispose of them, just like they did with some of the A320s, but 10 A320s are being reactivated to support domestic demand, though who knows at the Delta variant curve ball means for that plan. Those 10 A321s though could also be used to offer a more compelling product at JFK if they want to re-enter LAX or protect their SFO share and grow it. I'm not sure that is in the cards. I don't see AS putting lie flat seats in a sub fleet of 737-900ERs, MAX8 or MAX9 jets right now.

SEA-RAP on an E175 would be very helpful as an addition to the route map.

RWA380 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

AAG invested into a new Boardroom at JFK, it's the only one outside of the Pacific time zone.

Come on. I know it's a Seattle based airline, but given the name, can't we pretend that ANC still counts for something.

NameOmitted wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

AAG invested into a new Boardroom at JFK, it's the only one outside of the Pacific time zone.

Come on. I know it's a Seattle based airline, but given the name, can't we pretend that ANC still counts for something.

Of course it does, even if AAG just ran cargo planes alone they'd be profitable, I think with a full belly of cargo, passenger counts could be average & they'd find enough of a market, at least during the respective seafood seasons. The distribution opportunities in the US are the best at JFK & LAX. This is why ANC-ORD existed before SEA-ORD.

This is one of a few carriers that can hopefully depend on sustainable seafood distribution well into their future, like Icelandair for example. That aspect changes the playing field for AAG in deciding certain markets

One day in a few years, I'd expect to see ANC-IAD/BOS as well, for the same reasons. The economics of the MAX 9 will make routes like these more viable & tourism will drive them as well. Who knows how long domestic travel will be one of our select choices, for those wanting to travel?

ContinentalEWR wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Alaska Airlines has been the topic of discussions about their demise almost since time began. "AA is going to buy them, DL is going to buy them, NW is going to buy them...". "They're going to fail here and fail there" and "AS is just a little regional airline on the west coast..."

Alaska Airlines is the fifth largest airline in the United States and one of the most profitable. I have more confidence in the management at Alaska to make decisions that will continue to serve them well then I do of the armchair airline analysts here at airliners.net.

Alaska Airlines is a well run airline, yes and the wild speculation here is often ridiculous, particularly the folks who proclaim they have DoJ stats to back themselves up. I do think AS overpaid by a lot for VX and can't seem to make the key assets VX had work optimally, namely SFO, LAX, and JFK slots and share, and AS doesn't seem to have a strong offering in the premium cabin on flights where it competes in the hyper-competitive transcon market.

We share similar beliefs, except that I think Alaska will make something of what they “reluctantly” got from the VX buyout. I don’t think buying VX was something they chose, rather it chose them. It was a reactive measure (which is in keeping with managements style of running Alaska) to keep JetBlue off the west coast. Nobody could have guessed that Covid was going to wreak havoc on the industry. Had JetBlue been able to buy Virgin I believe they would be in trouble right now. Also in keeping with Alaska’s management style, they paid down the debt from the buyout really fast. JetBlue would likely not have been in the same position to do so. In any case, I think Alaska will get past this pandemic and find ways to use the slots at JFK that they ended up with and increase their presence in both LAX and SFO.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Of course A321NEOs are going away. Those will go away within a year of the last A320 going away. AS is not going to keep a sub fleet to 10 A321s.

As for 797, who knows when or if BA will launch it.

They'll use those brand new 321s as a down payment for further new aircraft, if they decide to dispose of them, just like they did with some of the A320s, but 10 A320s are being reactivated to support domestic demand, though who knows at the Delta variant curve ball means for that plan. Those 10 A321s though could also be used to offer a more compelling product at JFK if they want to re-enter LAX or protect their SFO share and grow it. I'm not sure that is in the cards. I don't see AS putting lie flat seats in a sub fleet of 737-900ERs, MAX8 or MAX9 jets right now.

I’m of the mind that if Alaska decides to outfit a subfleet with lie flat they may well use the 321 to do that. It makes sense. Boeing’s just don’t seem like the plane for that.

ASFlyer wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Of course A321NEOs are going away. Those will go away within a year of the last A320 going away. AS is not going to keep a sub fleet to 10 A321s.

As for 797, who knows when or if BA will launch it.

They'll use those brand new 321s as a down payment for further new aircraft, if they decide to dispose of them, just like they did with some of the A320s, but 10 A320s are being reactivated to support domestic demand, though who knows at the Delta variant curve ball means for that plan. Those 10 A321s though could also be used to offer a more compelling product at JFK if they want to re-enter LAX or protect their SFO share and grow it. I'm not sure that is in the cards. I don't see AS putting lie flat seats in a sub fleet of 737-900ERs, MAX8 or MAX9 jets right now.

I’m of the mind that if Alaska decides to outfit a subfleet with lie flat they may well use the 321 to do that. It makes sense. Boeing’s just don’t seem like the plane for that.

It still adds maintenance complexity that is not necessary.

Have they said how they are going to replace the 737-700s?

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Alaska Airlines is a well run airline, yes and the wild speculation here is often ridiculous, particularly the folks who proclaim they have DoJ stats to back themselves up. I do think AS overpaid by a lot for VX and can't seem to make the key assets VX had work optimally, namely SFO, LAX, and JFK slots and share, and AS doesn't seem to have a strong offering in the premium cabin on flights where it competes in the hyper-competitive transcon market.

We'll never know what might have been had B6+VX combined. But in 2021, B6 is still not where they want to be on the West, and AS paid off the VX debt two years ago. Years and years of solid fiscal management allowed them to "overpay" in that moment. In so doing, they blocked what may have been a titan competitor on the West Coast. No doubt it was a calculated risk, but it seems like it was well-calculated.

RWA380 wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Come on. I know it's a Seattle based airline, but given the name, can't we pretend that ANC still counts for something.

Of course it does, even if AAG just ran cargo planes alone they'd be profitable, I think with a full belly of cargo, passenger counts could be average & they'd find enough of a market, at least during the respective seafood seasons. The distribution opportunities in the US are the best at JFK & LAX. This is why ANC-ORD existed before SEA-ORD.

This is one of a few carriers that can hopefully depend on sustainable seafood distribution well into their future, like Icelandair for example. That aspect changes the playing field for AAG in deciding certain markets

One day in a few years, I'd expect to see ANC-IAD/BOS as well, for the same reasons. The economics of the MAX 9 will make routes like these more viable & tourism will drive them as well. Who knows how long domestic travel will be one of our select choices, for those wanting to travel?

I was referring to the Board Room we have in Anchorage, in the Alaska time-zone.

32andBelow wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

They'll use those brand new 321s as a down payment for further new aircraft, if they decide to dispose of them, just like they did with some of the A320s, but 10 A320s are being reactivated to support domestic demand, though who knows at the Delta variant curve ball means for that plan. Those 10 A321s though could also be used to offer a more compelling product at JFK if they want to re-enter LAX or protect their SFO share and grow it. I'm not sure that is in the cards. I don't see AS putting lie flat seats in a sub fleet of 737-900ERs, MAX8 or MAX9 jets right now.

I’m of the mind that if Alaska decides to outfit a subfleet with lie flat they may well use the 321 to do that. It makes sense. Boeing’s just don’t seem like the plane for that.

It still adds maintenance complexity that is not necessary.

Have they said how they are going to replace the 737-700s?

Having already been operating that fleet type, however, I feel like it could continue to operate fairly easily. The 321 fleet is in far better shape than the 320 fleet was and, with proper care, could continue to operate with little complications. There are additional training, maintenance and spare parts costs but if they believe they'll make it up in increased revenue then it could be worth it. I know management appreciates the MAX but they also seem to appreciate what the 321 brings to the table.

No word on the 737-700's, but given the age of the 737-200's when they retired them I don't think they're necessarily in a hurry to replace them. Right now, the 737-700 performs up in Alaska in a way that no other plane in the fleet really could.

NameOmitted wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Come on. I know it's a Seattle based airline, but given the name, can't we pretend that ANC still counts for something.

Of course it does, even if AAG just ran cargo planes alone they'd be profitable, I think with a full belly of cargo, passenger counts could be average & they'd find enough of a market, at least during the respective seafood seasons. The distribution opportunities in the US are the best at JFK & LAX. This is why ANC-ORD existed before SEA-ORD.

This is one of a few carriers that can hopefully depend on sustainable seafood distribution well into their future, like Icelandair for example. That aspect changes the playing field for AAG in deciding certain markets

One day in a few years, I'd expect to see ANC-IAD/BOS as well, for the same reasons. The economics of the MAX 9 will make routes like these more viable & tourism will drive them as well. Who knows how long domestic travel will be one of our select choices, for those wanting to travel?

I was referring to the Board Room we have in Anchorage, in the Alaska time-zone.

LMAO, my bad for being obtuse. Yes, I blew the pooch on that omission. Thanks for catch & being gracious.

I had not realized that PHX was now the #1 destination from SEA! Not only from SEA but PHX is also the #1 Destination from PAE! by almost twice as much passengers carried compared to the next top destination. There seems to be growing demand from the SEA region to PHX... I wonder if AS has looked into serving IWA with the increased demand to the area. I remember rumors that they had looked into it before.

allegiantflyer wrote:

I had not realized that PHX was now the #1 destination from SEA! Not only from SEA but PHX is also the #1 Destination from PAE! by almost twice as much passengers carried compared to the next top destination. There seems to be growing demand from the SEA region to PHX... I wonder if AS has looked into serving IWA with the increased demand to the area. I remember rumors that they had looked into it before.

What’s the source for this?

RWA380 wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Come on. I know it's a Seattle based airline, but given the name, can't we pretend that ANC still counts for something.

Of course it does, even if AAG just ran cargo planes alone they'd be profitable, I think with a full belly of cargo, passenger counts could be average & they'd find enough of a market, at least during the respective seafood seasons. The distribution opportunities in the US are the best at JFK & LAX. This is why ANC-ORD existed before SEA-ORD.

This is one of a few carriers that can hopefully depend on sustainable seafood distribution well into their future, like Icelandair for example. That aspect changes the playing field for AAG in deciding certain markets

One day in a few years, I'd expect to see ANC-IAD/BOS as well, for the same reasons. The economics of the MAX 9 will make routes like these more viable & tourism will drive them as well. Who knows how long domestic travel will be one of our select choices, for those wanting to travel?

I believe he's just referring to Boardroom and Oacific time zone comment. As ANC is outside if the Pacifuc Zone....

allegiantflyer wrote:

I had not realized that PHX was now the #1 destination from SEA! Not only from SEA but PHX is also the #1 Destination from PAE! by almost twice as much passengers carried compared to the next top destination. There seems to be growing demand from the SEA region to PHX... I wonder if AS has looked into serving IWA with the increased demand to the area. I remember rumors that they had looked into it before.

Laughlin/Bullhead City? Perhaps...but I doubt it.

jbs2886 wrote:

allegiantflyer wrote:

I had not realized that PHX was now the #1 destination from SEA! Not only from SEA but PHX is also the #1 Destination from PAE! There seems to be growing demand from the SEA region to PHX... I wonder if AS has looked into serving IWA with the increased demand to the area. I remember rumors that they had looked into it before.

What’s the source for this?

Honestly just using transtats

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports. ... 4vr4=SNPgf

jbs2886 wrote:

allegiantflyer wrote:

I had not realized that PHX was now the #1 destination from SEA! Not only from SEA but PHX is also the #1 Destination from PAE! by almost twice as much passengers carried compared to the next top destination. There seems to be growing demand from the SEA region to PHX... I wonder if AS has looked into serving IWA with the increased demand to the area. I remember rumors that they had looked into it before.

What’s the source for this?

It sure feels this way over 2018, 2019 and 2021. Tried to fly SEA-PHX on AS a few weeks ago and couldn’t get a seat at all. Only two seats on WN and none on AA. Wasn’t expecting a lot of demand for Phoenix in July.

wedgetail737 wrote:

allegiantflyer wrote:

I had not realized that PHX was now the #1 destination from SEA! Not only from SEA but PHX is also the #1 Destination from PAE! by almost twice as much passengers carried compared to the next top destination. There seems to be growing demand from the SEA region to PHX... I wonder if AS has looked into serving IWA with the increased demand to the area. I remember rumors that they had looked into it before.

Laughlin/Bullhead City? Perhaps...but I doubt it.

IWA is the old code for AZA, Phoenix Mesa airport (Laughlin is IFP). But still, I also doubt it.

allegiantflyer wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

allegiantflyer wrote:

I had not realized that PHX was now the #1 destination from SEA! Not only from SEA but PHX is also the #1 Destination from PAE! There seems to be growing demand from the SEA region to PHX... I wonder if AS has looked into serving IWA with the increased demand to the area. I remember rumors that they had looked into it before.

What’s the source for this?

Honestly just using transtats

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports. ... 4vr4=SNPgf

That's not O&D - it's just people on the segment. Many could be connecting PHX-xxx.

MIflyer12 wrote:

allegiantflyer wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

What’s the source for this?

Honestly just using transtats

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports. ... 4vr4=SNPgf

That's not O&D - it's just people on the segment. Many could be connecting PHX-xxx.

It’s still enplanements.

His reference was #1 destination. That's a midread of BTS data.

We don't need to have a long discussion about the industry meaning of destination, do we?

EA CO AS wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

allegiantflyer wrote:

Honestly just using transtats

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports. ... 4vr4=SNPgf

That's not O&D - it's just people on the segment. Many could be connecting PHX-xxx.

It’s still enplanements.

Enplanements doesn't really capture passenger O/D though does it? Alaska forcing everyone through Seattle these days, so far this year it's felt like non-SEA frequency has been gutted.

PacificWest wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

That's not O&D - it's just people on the segment. Many could be connecting PHX-xxx.

It’s still enplanements.

Enplanements doesn't really capture passenger O/D though does it? Alaska forcing everyone through Seattle these days, so far this year it's felt like non-SEA frequency has been gutted.

What exactly is your argument? WN, AA and AS are packed to the gills on SEA-PHX. The O&D is significant with a ton of people in the SEA area owning property in the PHX area - and generally, just people going south to avoid Covid restrictions in other places since people are pretending that Covid isn't happening down there.

dfw88 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

allegiantflyer wrote:

I had not realized that PHX was now the #1 destination from SEA! Not only from SEA but PHX is also the #1 Destination from PAE! by almost twice as much passengers carried compared to the next top destination. There seems to be growing demand from the SEA region to PHX... I wonder if AS has looked into serving IWA with the increased demand to the area. I remember rumors that they had looked into it before.

Laughlin/Bullhead City? Perhaps...but I doubt it.

IWA is the old code for AZA, Phoenix Mesa airport (Laughlin is IFP). But still, I also doubt it.

Thanks for the correction!

ASFlyer wrote:

What exactly is your argument? WN, AA and AS are packed to the gills on SEA-PHX. The O&D is significant with a ton of people in the SEA area owning property in the PHX area - and generally, just people going south to avoid Covid restrictions in other places since people are pretending that Covid isn't happening down there.

DL serves PHX nonstop from SEA in addition to AS, AA, and WN.

Looks like Max #6 will be a leased frame and will bear the registration N921AK. Are the leased frames being included in the sequence that began with N913AK or is this a one off because N291BT freed up a tail number in the sequence?

ASFlyer wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

It’s still enplanements.

Enplanements doesn't really capture passenger O/D though does it? Alaska forcing everyone through Seattle these days, so far this year it's felt like non-SEA frequency has been gutted.

What exactly is your argument?

Enplanement data isn't O&D. Destination is the D in O&D. Allegiantflyer cited BTS data calling PHX the number 1 destination from SEA but that's not what the data purport. There are enplanements SEA-PHX continuing beyond PHX.

Yes, I guess we did need a discussion of what destination really means.

or possibly just a discussion of what the word "pedantic" means ???

I'm eager to see what AS will announce next...maybe for Winter or next Summer.

737maxfan wrote:

or possibly just a discussion of what the word "pedantic" means ???

There could be a huge difference in being the number 1 destination, and in being number one in emplanments when the destination is a hub for an airline that is a close partner with the biggest share of the origin airport market.

One just says something about where AS and AA route passengers through, the other says something about where people in SEA want to travel to.

If AA decided to move their PHX hub to Cheyenne, suddenly Cheyenne would have a significant number of SEA emplanments, but very few extra passengers would be buying tickets to Cheyenne.

What is the status of 737Max 9 REG N60436 to join Alaska;s fleet is it ready for service?? IS it still in test mode?

MIflyer12 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

Enplanements doesn't really capture passenger O/D though does it? Alaska forcing everyone through Seattle these days, so far this year it's felt like non-SEA frequency has been gutted.

What exactly is your argument?

Enplanement data isn't O&D. Destination is the D in O&D. Allegiantflyer cited BTS data calling PHX the number 1 destination from SEA but that's not what the data purport. There are enplanements SEA-PHX continuing beyond PHX.

Yes, I guess we did need a discussion of what destination really means.

Thank you for the lesson. Yes, I get what the "D" stands for in O&D. No need to be a "D". Nevertheless, my point is that there is an abundance of flights between SEA and PHX. I'm not interested in digging up the figures but I would imagine that there's a hefty chunk of "D" passengers on this particular route. Yes, I get that three of the four carriers offering flights between SEA and PHX have a hub on one end or the other, it doesn't mean that this particular route doesn't have a sizeable amount of "O&D" traffic. And honestly, who really cares.

b777900 wrote:

What is the status of 737Max 9 REG N60436 to join Alaska;s fleet is it ready for service?? IS it still in test mode?

I believe it will continue various tests through the end of the year and be delivered as N979AK in early 2022. This is due to it being a member of the eco-demonstrator program. Once Boeing completes the regimen for that the airplane will be handed over to AS.

MIflyer12 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

Enplanements doesn't really capture passenger O/D though does it? Alaska forcing everyone through Seattle these days, so far this year it's felt like non-SEA frequency has been gutted.

What exactly is your argument?

Enplanement data isn't O&D. Destination is the D in O&D. Allegiantflyer cited BTS data calling PHX the number 1 destination from SEA but that's not what the data purport. There are enplanements SEA-PHX continuing beyond PHX.

Yes, I guess we did need a discussion of what destination really means.

Continuing beyond PHX on whom? AS isn’t co-located with AA at PHX and anyone headed anywhere on AA is likely connecting over PHX on AA or DFW already.

EA CO AS wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

What exactly is your argument?

Enplanement data isn't O&D. Destination is the D in O&D. Allegiantflyer cited BTS data calling PHX the number 1 destination from SEA but that's not what the data purport. There are enplanements SEA-PHX continuing beyond PHX.

Yes, I guess we did need a discussion of what destination really means.

Continuing beyond PHX on whom? AS isn’t co-located with AA at PHX and anyone headed anywhere on AA is likely connecting over PHX on AA or DFW already.

Miflyer said phx but this would also apply to sea. Fundamentally, #1 route should be based on o&d numbers rather than enplanement numbers.

tphuang wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Enplanement data isn't O&D. Destination is the D in O&D. Allegiantflyer cited BTS data calling PHX the number 1 destination from SEA but that's not what the data purport. There are enplanements SEA-PHX continuing beyond PHX.

Yes, I guess we did need a discussion of what destination really means.

Continuing beyond PHX on whom? AS isn’t co-located with AA at PHX and anyone headed anywhere on AA is likely connecting over PHX on AA or DFW already.

Miflyer said phx but this would also apply to sea. Fundamentally, #1 route should be based on o&d numbers rather than enplanement numbers.

Why? Connections or not, more people are flying SEA-PHX than any other route.

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Continuing beyond PHX on whom? AS isn’t co-located with AA at PHX and anyone headed anywhere on AA is likely connecting over PHX on AA or DFW already.

Miflyer said phx but this would also apply to sea. Fundamentally, #1 route should be based on o&d numbers rather than enplanement numbers.

Why? Connections or not, more people are flying SEA-PHX than any other route.

well technically, a lot of those people are flying a lot further than just from SEA to PHX. BTS report on market size only looks at origin and destination airports.