BoeingGuy wrote:

gmcc wrote:

AS released a 8k on sept 2, with an updated expected fleet count June 2021 to December 31 2023. Mainline goes from 202 today to 251 or around 24 percent increase. Regional goes from 94 to 111 or around 18 percent increase.
https://investor.alaskaair.com/node/31956/html
While all of this is subject to change it seems as if they are planning for some expansion which I don't think can all be funneled through SEA.

Interestingly they show no reduction in the 737-700, 737-900 non-ER or Q400 fleets by the end of 2023. I thought with the growth of the 737-9 and E175 fleet, AS would whittle down these sub-fleets.

Any change in the number of A320's or A321NEO's? I would imagine AS would try to remove the Airbus aircraft over the NG aircraft for the time-being. Also, the Q400's are good for some markets that doesn't support the E-175's, even if they hold the same amount of people, more or less.

wedgetail737 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

gmcc wrote:

AS released a 8k on sept 2, with an updated expected fleet count June 2021 to December 31 2023. Mainline goes from 202 today to 251 or around 24 percent increase. Regional goes from 94 to 111 or around 18 percent increase.
https://investor.alaskaair.com/node/31956/html
While all of this is subject to change it seems as if they are planning for some expansion which I don't think can all be funneled through SEA.

Interestingly they show no reduction in the 737-700, 737-900 non-ER or Q400 fleets by the end of 2023. I thought with the growth of the 737-9 and E175 fleet, AS would whittle down these sub-fleets.

Any change in the number of A320's or A321NEO's? I would imagine AS would try to remove the Airbus aircraft over the NG aircraft for the time-being. Also, the Q400's are good for some markets that doesn't support the E-175's, even if they hold the same amount of people, more or less.

All A320s will be gone (just click the link).

wedgetail737 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

gmcc wrote:

AS released a 8k on sept 2, with an updated expected fleet count June 2021 to December 31 2023. Mainline goes from 202 today to 251 or around 24 percent increase. Regional goes from 94 to 111 or around 18 percent increase.
https://investor.alaskaair.com/node/31956/html
While all of this is subject to change it seems as if they are planning for some expansion which I don't think can all be funneled through SEA.

Interestingly they show no reduction in the 737-700, 737-900 non-ER or Q400 fleets by the end of 2023. I thought with the growth of the 737-9 and E175 fleet, AS would whittle down these sub-fleets.

Any change in the number of A320's or A321NEO's? I would imagine AS would try to remove the Airbus aircraft over the NG aircraft for the time-being. Also, the Q400's are good for some markets that doesn't support the E-175's, even if they hold the same amount of people, more or less.

It’s in the attached link. All A320s phased out by end of 2023. Most of them are removed during 2023 itself. The 10 A321NEOs remain at the end of 2023.

A321 mint type sub fleet. Guaranteed

SANFan wrote:

pdxav8r wrote:

C’mon RWA…you bit. Don’t bite.

??????
Would you mind explaining exactly what my friend RWA' "bit on"?

bb

Talking to you ? LOL! Serious politics here, so much fun. Anyway, as we both know AS won't cede SAN or PDX, the rest is speculation. Much of adds, done on short notice, but markets well thought out.

Does anyone know what the mainline fleet count was at its peak before covid?

airplaneboy wrote:

Does anyone know what the mainline fleet count was at its peak before covid?

Per the 2019 Annual Report (10K) they had 237 Mainline Aircraft as of 12/31/2019. Of these 163 Boeing, 71 Airbus and 3 Boeing Freighters. This can be found on page 43 of the annual report for reference.

At the end of 2019 they had 95 aircraft in the regional fleet. 33 Q400's operated by Horizon. 30 E175's operated by Horizon and 32 E175's operated by third party.

The total fleet size was 332, or 329 without the freighters.

https://investor.alaskaair.com/financia ... al-reports

At the end of 2020 for reference they had a fleet of 291 total.
Mainline: Freighters - 3, Boeing - 163, Airbus - 31
Regional: Q400 - 32, E175 - 62

RWA380 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

pdxav8r wrote:

C’mon RWA…you bit. Don’t bite.

??????
Would you mind explaining exactly what my friend RWA' "bit on"?

bb

Talking to you ? LOL! Serious politics here, so much fun. Anyway, as we both know AS won't cede SAN or PDX, the rest is speculation. Much of adds, done on short notice, but markets well thought out.

That's why I post rarely on the Oregon-thread B. Do you know if tarring-and-feathering is allowed on A.net?

However, I kind of thought this AS-thread was safe territory... Not that I'll stop posting here!

bb

32andBelow wrote:

A321 mint type sub fleet. Guaranteed

Guaranteed? Why, because of that lie-flat focus group email that went out to some MVPs?

I agree the 321 would be the frame to do it on since the 737 would be too cramped, but only 10 frames? That limits destinations and frequencies and the ability to scale up if they aren't committed to retaining Airbus for the long term. I'm skeptical.

trueblew wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

A321 mint type sub fleet. Guaranteed

Guaranteed? Why, because of that lie-flat focus group email that went out to some MVPs?

I agree the 321 would be the frame to do it on since the 737 would be too cramped, but only 10 frames? That limits destinations and frequencies and the ability to scale up if they aren't committed to retaining Airbus for the long term. I'm skeptical.

Considering how prudent an airline they are, I doubt they would want to do a mass rollout of an untested product. 10 frames sound like a good place to start targeting flights on NYC-SEA/SFO/LAX, which are going to be the key routes anyway. If successful, they can always add additional aircraft. And the pilot pool is relatively easily expendable with existing Airbus pilots requiring limited retraining. They've got flexibility. And with the a321 around for the foreseeable future, they might as well put them to good use.

BangersAndMash wrote:

trueblew wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

A321 mint type sub fleet. Guaranteed

Guaranteed? Why, because of that lie-flat focus group email that went out to some MVPs?

I agree the 321 would be the frame to do it on since the 737 would be too cramped, but only 10 frames? That limits destinations and frequencies and the ability to scale up if they aren't committed to retaining Airbus for the long term. I'm skeptical.

Considering how prudent an airline they are, I doubt they would want to do a mass rollout of an untested product. 10 frames sound like a good place to start targeting flights on NYC-SEA/SFO/LAX, which are going to be the key routes anyway. If successful, they can always add additional aircraft. And the pilot pool is relatively easily expendable with existing Airbus pilots requiring limited retraining. They've got flexibility. And with the a321 around for the foreseeable future, they might as well put them to good use.

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

tphuang wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

trueblew wrote:

Guaranteed? Why, because of that lie-flat focus group email that went out to some MVPs?

I agree the 321 would be the frame to do it on since the 737 would be too cramped, but only 10 frames? That limits destinations and frequencies and the ability to scale up if they aren't committed to retaining Airbus for the long term. I'm skeptical.

Considering how prudent an airline they are, I doubt they would want to do a mass rollout of an untested product. 10 frames sound like a good place to start targeting flights on NYC-SEA/SFO/LAX, which are going to be the key routes anyway. If successful, they can always add additional aircraft. And the pilot pool is relatively easily expendable with existing Airbus pilots requiring limited retraining. They've got flexibility. And with the a321 around for the foreseeable future, they might as well put them to good use.

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

yet they won’t commit to getting rid of them. They also are testing the lie flats. It’s just all adding up.

SANFan wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

??????
Would you mind explaining exactly what my friend RWA' "bit on"?

bb

Talking to you ? LOL! Serious politics here, so much fun. Anyway, as we both know AS won't cede SAN or PDX, the rest is speculation. Much of adds, done on short notice, but markets well thought out.

That's why I post rarely on the Oregon-thread B. Do you know if tarring-and-feathering is allowed on A.net?

However, I kind of thought this AS-thread was safe territory... Not that I'll stop posting here!

bb

B-.

Post where you like. Anyone here to act childish, is diminishing their experience, let your flag fly. I'm so beyond the politics of grade school. Both of us have been around long enough to know, people come & go. Sometimes, they are good sources of info (like Enilrea) who tire of the antics of entry level airline employees, living in their Mom's basement, but acting like they can run it like Ed Bastain.

As I stay to the side & enjoy the little hair pulling fights some diminish to, you & I are adults well into our 40's (LOL) & as this is part of our entertainment as well, we have just as much right to be here with an opinion. But, I'm a super good source of history, but honestly, if it were not for my handful of friends who work in AAG, I'd be lost understanding the new metrics they fly by.

Ignore the silliness of it all, you're welcome in the Oregon thread, it beats the ones who are constantly decrying PDX's demise. B-

32andBelow wrote:

tphuang wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Considering how prudent an airline they are, I doubt they would want to do a mass rollout of an untested product. 10 frames sound like a good place to start targeting flights on NYC-SEA/SFO/LAX, which are going to be the key routes anyway. If successful, they can always add additional aircraft. And the pilot pool is relatively easily expendable with existing Airbus pilots requiring limited retraining. They've got flexibility. And with the a321 around for the foreseeable future, they might as well put them to good use.

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

yet they won’t commit to getting rid of them. They also are testing the lie flats. It’s just all adding up.

Exactly. The message from AS management has been pretty clear: they're committed to the a321s. We'll see what they do with them, but experimenting with lie-flats makes sense.

BangersAndMash wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

yet they won’t commit to getting rid of them. They also are testing the lie flats. It’s just all adding up.

Exactly. The message from AS management has been pretty clear: they're committed to the a321s. We'll see what they do with them, but experimenting with lie-flats makes sense.

When will the "Proudly All Boeing" decals get scraped off the side of the jets?

32andBelow wrote:

tphuang wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Considering how prudent an airline they are, I doubt they would want to do a mass rollout of an untested product. 10 frames sound like a good place to start targeting flights on NYC-SEA/SFO/LAX, which are going to be the key routes anyway. If successful, they can always add additional aircraft. And the pilot pool is relatively easily expendable with existing Airbus pilots requiring limited retraining. They've got flexibility. And with the a321 around for the foreseeable future, they might as well put them to good use.

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

yet they won’t commit to getting rid of them. They also are testing the lie flats. It’s just all adding up.

A321NEOs will be gone as soon as there is a competitive market to offload them. AS really values single fleet cost reductions. Anything they test on A321NEO can also be installed on MAX10.

If they were to keep a dual fleet around, they will need a lot more than 10 of them.

BangersAndMash wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

yet they won’t commit to getting rid of them. They also are testing the lie flats. It’s just all adding up.

Exactly. The message from AS management has been pretty clear: they're committed to the a321s. We'll see what they do with them, but experimenting with lie-flats makes sense.

They’re also new so most of the mx is probably covered. And it’ll increase their negotiating position with Boeing.

BangersAndMash wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

yet they won’t commit to getting rid of them. They also are testing the lie flats. It’s just all adding up.

Exactly. The message from AS management has been pretty clear: they're committed to the a321s. We'll see what they do with them, but experimenting with lie-flats makes sense.

One factor that could go either way on a 321 lie flat sub fleet is the fact the birds are leased and may only be around till 2029. Management likes to own aircraft so that would be a factor against them. On the other hand it could be that since they are leased they don't have to worry about them being around for the long term if the lie flat doesn't work out. I am still not convinced a business case can be made for a small specialty subfleet at AS.

Another use for the 321 fleet is getting a full load out of tough transcon airports. Management has stated on earnings calls that 321 can do stuff out of DCA that others planes in their fleet can't so that may be their fate, DCA-West coast.

tphuang wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

yet they won’t commit to getting rid of them. They also are testing the lie flats. It’s just all adding up.

A321NEOs will be gone as soon as there is a competitive market to offload them. AS really values single fleet cost reductions. Anything they test on A321NEO can also be installed on MAX10.

If they were to keep a dual fleet around, they will need a lot more than 10 of them.

Maybe they’ll switch it to max10 or maybe they will buy more a321s. But as of now they have them and it’s the perfect airplane to try this if they are going to.

SEATTLE, Sept. 10, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The celebration for the return of professional football continues today at Alaska Airlines, where the Seattle-based airline unveiled its fourth Russell Wilson livery. The Boeing 737-900ER aircraft was introduced to fans waiting for a flight from Seattle (SEA) to Indianapolis (IND), where Alaska's Chief Football Officer is set to take the field in his first game this season.

My own input is, A different type of new livery & a departure from animated Disney characters, celebrating an awesome athlete & a man dedicated to the advancement of Pacific Northwest Sports, with the hopes of Pro-Baseball in Portland down the road & bet AS has a special livery for them as well, just like my absolute favorite AS livery ever the Timbers Jet.

https://newsroom.alaskaair.com/2021-09- ... nes-livery

The plane, tail number N296AK, will fly throughout Alaska's network all season long. Keep an eye out for additional Russell Wilson and Alaska fun this football season by following Alaska Airlines at @AlaskaAir.

I know the fly, while wearing his jersey is getting early boarding for some in the know, I keep one in my hand carry bag & toss it over anything I am wearing except outerwear.

Will it salute Russell Wilson by suddenly running out of fuel and having to divert in the 4th quarter of the flight? Sorry I had to

N292UX wrote:

Will it salute Russell Wilson by suddenly running out of fuel and having to divert in the 4th quarter of the flight? Sorry I had to

If they wanted it to do that they would have put it on one of the returning A320s, then scheduled it to fly in to the strongest winter headwinds so it would have to tech stop. Don't think that is what they are going for

Russel Williams is my favorite player on the C-Hox

Friendly reminder that he was low key terrible the second half of last year.

Is it just me or does that photo with Russell in it make the 737 look like the nose gear is collapsed?

727231 wrote:

Is it just me or does that photo with Russell in it make the 737 look like the nose gear is collapsed?

You are spot on

That's what it looked like to me too.
Meanwhile I was wondering if it would be sacrilegious for the next version to feature his face on the tail, wearing Chester's fur hood.

Excellent promotion for both Russell Wilson & Alaska Airlines.

727231 wrote:

Is it just me or does that photo with Russell in it make the 737 look like the nose gear is collapsed?

Yeah I came here to say that.

I’m kinda amazed that AS’s media team let that get out.

It’s a bad angle and the photographer should’ve figured that out pretty quickly.

N292UX wrote:

Will it salute Russell Wilson by suddenly running out of fuel and having to divert in the 4th quarter of the flight? Sorry I had to

Nah, it just won't run on a really short flight

USAirKid wrote:

727231 wrote:

Is it just me or does that photo with Russell in it make the 737 look like the nose gear is collapsed?

Yeah I came here to say that.

I’m kinda amazed that AS’s media team let that get out.

It’s a bad angle and the photographer should’ve figured that out pretty quickly.

It's a dramatic, artistic framing. People aren't going to see it and think the plane crashed.

I always think its funny he's sponsored by them but he owns a Gulfstream he flies around on.

Caught it departing Newark early this morning:

Anyone know about the web site Fare Measure? According to them, 123 Passengers fly between Spokane, Washington & Santa Ana, California. Maybe there is high enough demand to warrant Embraer 175 flights? I would love to see Alaska Airlines add more non - stop flights to cities from Spokane, Washington.

dc10lover wrote:

Anyone know about the web site Fare Measure? According to them, 123 Passengers fly between Spokane, Washington & Santa Ana, California. Maybe there is high enough demand to warrant Embraer 175 flights? I would love to see Alaska Airlines add more non - stop flights to cities from Spokane, Washington.

SNA and PHX seem like the next logical adds for them from GEG. LAS too, but they may already operate that. G4 just entered Phoenix-Spokane, though, and WN/AA are already there, so it may be tough

tphuang wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS will not keep a subfleet of 10 A321s. It just won't happen. The cost far outweighs the benefits. They can always get a lie flat sublfeet with MAX9 or MAX10 if they want to go in that direction.

yet they won’t commit to getting rid of them. They also are testing the lie flats. It’s just all adding up.

A321NEOs will be gone as soon as there is a competitive market to offload them. AS really values single fleet cost reductions. Anything they test on A321NEO can also be installed on MAX10.

If they were to keep a dual fleet around, they will need a lot more than 10 of them.

I don't know any details, but it is possible a deal to let another carrier to obtain up to 8 them has not been made public yet, because not everything is finalized & AAG has a few years left on those horrid leases that VX was able to get, during their first 5 years, they'd have gotten better later on, AS knows any number of carriers that would snap them up, even DL, they are popular for domestic 757 replacements Maybe that Ravn Alaska startup of being based in ANC, flying to ICN & NRT, the LAS, NYC, MIA all via ANC. Idea is lower operating costs using the A-321neo, but maybe they'll need the lr.

But I expect AS to MAXimise the MAX 9, with fine tuning it's limits with real life journeys, I bet we see a wee bit better chasm on the longer trips & it offers more n/s opportunities for new destinations. While trying to maintain a respectable presence on the entire West Coast, especially the focus cities & hubs.

MaxTrimm wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

Anyone know about the web site Fare Measure? According to them, 123 Passengers fly between Spokane, Washington & Santa Ana, California. Maybe there is high enough demand to warrant Embraer 175 flights? I would love to see Alaska Airlines add more non - stop flights to cities from Spokane, Washington.

SNA and PHX seem like the next logical adds for them from GEG. LAS too, but they may already operate that. G4 just entered Phoenix-Spokane, though, and WN/AA are already there, so it may be tough

I for sure hope that AS adds more at GEG

MIflyer12 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

727231 wrote:

Is it just me or does that photo with Russell in it make the 737 look like the nose gear is collapsed?

Yeah I came here to say that.

I’m kinda amazed that AS’s media team let that get out.

It’s a bad angle and the photographer should’ve figured that out pretty quickly.

It's a dramatic, artistic framing. People aren't going to see it and think the plane crashed.

I’d agree…. If this photo was in a gallery or an artistic collection. It’s a really good photo in the sense that it makes you work to interpret what is going on. Instead it’s supposed to be showing Mr. Wilson and the plane with his name on it.

It’s the difference between a comedian covering a topical news item and the newscaster delivering the news. They each have their place, but this was a news release, not a artistic compilation put together by Alaska Airlines.

dc10lover wrote:

Excellent promotion for both Russell Wilson & Alaska Airlines.

I agree. That said, can you imagine if they put Mrs. Wilson on an aircraft as well?

"Let me see you, one, two - step".

In my memory at least, he is one of the few living celebrities to have his own Logo Jet. The only one that comes to mind right now is Taylor Swift with Air Asia.................Russell Wilson has a great reputation, but imagine the nightmare that would unfold if some huge negative PR scandal involving him was in the headlines.

spinkid wrote:

In my memory at least, he is one of the few living celebrities to have his own Logo Jet. The only one that comes to mind right now is Taylor Swift with Air Asia.................Russell Wilson has a great reputation, but imagine the nightmare that would unfold if some huge negative PR scandal involving him was in the headlines.

The plane would go straight to the hanger for the logo removal.

Wingtips56 wrote:

spinkid wrote:

In my memory at least, he is one of the few living celebrities to have his own Logo Jet. The only one that comes to mind right now is Taylor Swift with Air Asia.................Russell Wilson has a great reputation, but imagine the nightmare that would unfold if some huge negative PR scandal involving him was in the headlines.

The plane would go straight to the hanger for the logo removal.

Yup admittedly this is the risk of anytime a company has a celebrity spokesperson. Jared the Subway guy comes to mind, but I’m sure there are other examples. The company quickly cuts ties with the person and removes any promotional materials with their name or likeness. Just in this case the promotional material is an airplane.

Is this one standard on the inside? I know AS has done special things in the cabin with the salmon plane…

spinkid wrote:

In my memory at least, he is one of the few living celebrities to have his own Logo Jet. The only one that comes to mind right now is Taylor Swift with Air Asia.................Russell Wilson has a great reputation, but imagine the nightmare that would unfold if some huge negative PR scandal involving him was in the headlines.

Alaska has to live with Russell Wilson as their only connection to the Seahawks, as Delta is the official airline of the Seahawks.

This is the third version of the Russell Wilson theme plane. He's been the "Chief Football Officer" for most of his career so far.

dc10lover wrote:

Anyone know about the web site Fare Measure? According to them, 123 Passengers fly between Spokane, Washington & Santa Ana, California. Maybe there is high enough demand to warrant Embraer 175 flights? I would love to see Alaska Airlines add more non - stop flights to cities from Spokane, Washington.

That's an interesting statistic but I would have to ask about avg fares. E75s are not low-CASM planes even when operated by Horizon. Then you think about how many passengers will stick with connections, and what I guess would be limited opportunity for stimulation on the GEG-SNA airport pair (because of LAX).

gmcc wrote:

Another use for the 321 fleet is getting a full load out of tough transcon airports. Management has stated on earnings calls that 321 can do stuff out of DCA that others planes in their fleet can't so that may be their fate, DCA-West coast.

Come on.. how many tough transcon airports are there? They don't fly east of ORD from SNA, and not even 1000 sm from BUR. They don't fly from LGA at all. You don't keep a separate type for DCA-SEA/PDX/SFO/LAX... not at the (restricted) frequencies AS flies them. It's pathological to keep a narrowbody type of 10 aircraft. AS knows this. They didn't even want a fleet of 73 in the A320 family!

MIflyer12 wrote:

gmcc wrote:

Another use for the 321 fleet is getting a full load out of tough transcon airports. Management has stated on earnings calls that 321 can do stuff out of DCA that others planes in their fleet can't so that may be their fate, DCA-West coast.

Come on.. how many tough transcon airports are there? They don't fly east of ORD from SNA, and not even 1000 sm from BUR. They don't fly from LGA at all. You don't keep a separate type for DCA-SEA/PDX/SFO/LAX... not at the (restricted) frequencies AS flies them. It's pathological to keep a narrowbody type of 10 aircraft. AS knows this. They didn't even want a fleet of 73 in the A320 family!

They will get rid of those a321neo at about the same time as the a320 classic are removed from service. It's absolutely foolish to keep around 10 a321neo for 3 years by itself. And then as will probably have 5 737 bases in the future (sea, pdx, anc, lax and San). Of course, people will probably tell me I am wrong now and that as will keep a321neo for a long time so they can have a lie flat fleet.

Those wanting more destinations from SNA have to remember that for AS to add, say GEG or BOI, they would have to drop something else until such time as they get more slots. I'm sure it's a challenge for any carrier at SNA to decide whether a new route would bring in more revenue than an existing one with known numbers.

In AS's case, flights to hubs like SEA, PDX & SFO and short-haul intra-CA routes like STS carry, I'm sure, a great deal of local and/or connecting traffic; is it worth dropping one of those flights for a thinner GEG- or BOI-bound one that is already well-served from that monster airport a few miles up the 405?

bb

Lootess wrote:

spinkid wrote:

In my memory at least, he is one of the few living celebrities to have his own Logo Jet. The only one that comes to mind right now is Taylor Swift with Air Asia.................Russell Wilson has a great reputation, but imagine the nightmare that would unfold if some huge negative PR scandal involving him was in the headlines.

Alaska has to live with Russell Wilson as their only connection to the Seahawks, as Delta is the official airline of the Seahawks.

Alaska could have bought the naming rights to that stadium. But it might have been too spendy for them.

spinkid wrote:

In my memory at least, he is one of the few living celebrities to have his own Logo Jet. The only one that comes to mind right now is Taylor Swift with Air Asia.................Russell Wilson has a great reputation, but imagine the nightmare that would unfold if some huge negative PR scandal involving him was in the headlines.

Kevin Durant also had an AS logo jet.