DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Does AS pilots have a scope clause?

I was actually wondering about this too, and if they do, how this might affect them.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Airbii wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Source please?
bb

Internal company info. Should not have been shared. I don't see it publicly either, all the more reason not to have posted that information.

That was pretty foolish. It’s a great way to get fired.

Expressing an opinion is one thing. Posting non-public proprietary information on the Internet is a fireable offense at most companies.

Agree. If it was an opinion, fine, but state it as such. If it is a fact, as it is stated, we need to know the source. And if it is internal info at AS, I imagine management is not very happy right now.

The gateway(s) and frequencies were definitely not announced by Alaska in the PR and Belize City does not even appear on AS's website. Probably for a reason.

We need a source, or at the very least the post will undoubtedly disappear as will possibly someone's job...

bb

32andBelow wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Flying like LAX-SEA-BZE makes no sense when SEA-LAX-BZE does

SMH, read my posts. I said it makes sense for much of the PNW that is already backtracking through SEA for most connections. I also said I think LAX/SEA-BZE makes sense to capture AS's full market on the west coast. I never said LAX-SEA-BZE makes sense.

Also, I'll state again, the obsession that people won't backtrack is false. The SEA hub relies almost entirely on backtracking, as do many other hubs.

There is a rule in GDS called circuitry. There is an acceptable amount of backtracking. I’d say running it through lax is much more acceptable than running it through sea for a majority of their network

Except the majority of AS's network doesn't connect to LAX without double connecting. In fact, if you look at AS's LAX network, its only about a dozen cities that would work, anything else would be an "unacceptable" amount of backtracking. Regardless, again, I never said they shouldn't fly from LAX and that it doesn't make sense for a number of fliers. But for AS's bread and butter market (the PNW), they already backtrack through SEA.

SA280 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The mainline pilots are not going to like this.

On the other hand, passengers will love it!

No one loves the cramped E175's, where overhead bins cannot hold a backpack...

AC4500 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

What viable connections could be made in Seattle that wouldn't involve backtracking?

There would be viable connecting opportunities that don't involve backtracking onto AS's SEA-BZE flights from AS SEA-ANC/BLI/FAI/JNU/KTN/SIT/YVR/YYJ flights.

So only Canada and Alaska? That's pretty much what I was getting at.

About 24 million people in WA, AK, OR, MT, ID, and western Canada are pretty used to SEA as a connecting point even if it does involve some backtracking. People still fly BOI-SEA-IAH even though BOI-DEN-IAH is available. Even folks from as south as SMF and RNO use SEA to connect back south or east depending on price.

d8s wrote:

SA280 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The mainline pilots are not going to like this.

On the other hand, passengers will love it!

No one loves the cramped E175's, where overhead bins cannot hold a backpack...

Cramped? With no middle seats it’s a wayyy better ride

The barbie sized overhead bins on the -175s are comical though...but yes, otherwise a comfortable plane.

I think it will be LAX-BZE. AA will not be operating the flight in June or July. I think AS will take it over.

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

I would think that their pilots would be happy that there are more mainline aircraft coming in. Does AS pilots have a scope clause?

nope because the arbitrator blocked it

phatfarmlines wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

The only logical choice is LAX.

LAX has the second largest Belizean community in the US.

I recall someone operating LAX-BZE 1x weekly back in the day, was it TACA?

EDIT: Saw an article from 2013 where DL announced1x weekly LAX-BZE, but during the TACA days, perhaps they flew it as well?

TACA did never fly the BZE-LAX sector. It was promoted as TA BZE-SAL and then TA SAL-LAX.
Their non-stop Central American flights to LA departed from either SAL, GUA or SJO; especially from San Salvador.
If my brain even works correctly, the only airline operating this segment as non-stop in the past was DL LAX-BZE, as ponting out above.

Regards.

d8s wrote:

SA280 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The mainline pilots are not going to like this.

On the other hand, passengers will love it!

No one loves the cramped E175's, where overhead bins cannot hold a backpack...

That's weird... I have never had any issue doing it with a typical carry-on luggage (22"x14"x10").

Anyway, the E175 has always been my first choice when possible, due to the very comfy 4-abreast layout, short boarding and very short deplaning.
With the pandemic, with all the social distancing concerns, this preference just reinforced.

SJOtoLIR wrote:

Alaska Airlines actually operates a vast network out of LAX to Mexico and Central America: Ixtapa - Zihuatanejo, Manzanillo, Puerto Vallarta, Mazatlan, San Jose del Cabo, Loreto, Guadalajara, Cancun, Liberia and San Jose.
On the other hand, Belize City operates many flights coming from the USA with limited weekly frequencies: UA DEN-BZE 1x weekly, UA ORD-BZE 1x weeklu, UA EWR-BZE 2x weekly, UA CLT-BZE 1x weekly, UA LAX-BZE 1x weekly and AA LAX-BZE 1x weekly.
I wouldn't speculate about the departure point and weekly frequencies, but we could get some conclusions based on this pattern.

I meant: AA CLT-BZE.

SA280 wrote:

d8s wrote:

SA280 wrote:

On the other hand, passengers will love it!

No one loves the cramped E175's, where overhead bins cannot hold a backpack...

That's weird... I have never had any issue doing it with a typical carry-on luggage (22"x14"x10").

Anyway, the E175 has always been my first choice when possible, due to the very comfy 4-abreast layout, short boarding and very short deplaning.
With the pandemic, with all the social distancing concerns, this preference just reinforced.

Exactly, those overhead bins hold a carry-on, far more than a backpack. He must be confusing it with the E145s. My preference for the E175s is *far* better upgrade chances (granted, seat isn't as great as mainline first, but its nice, especially on the 1 side).

The Q's days are numbered.

How much tourist infrastructure is there in Belize? It just seems like there's a ton of service for a country of under 400k people.

AC4500 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

They also announced today they’ll be adding some lines of Airbus flying by bringing some A320s out of storage.

Also adding 3 seats to the -800s

BZE will be 5x weekly LAX, 2x weekly from SEA. Seasonal, potentially year round if it performs well.

Those are very bold claims. I'll believe it when a source is made public. I really don't think SEA-BZE will be likely to happen at all.

It's true. Service will run seasonally from November to May and will be expanded to year-round if it performs well. LAXBZE is 5X weekly and SEABZE 2X weekly.

Abeam79 wrote:

Basically just replacing the retiring Airbuses. Barely a "growth" order, unless your Horizon/Skywest

Called this 2 years ago and the main AS fanboys here on a.net begged to differ. Its just becoming more and more obvious. I chuckled at the OneWorld announcement. They are once again a regional feeder for the big boys who happens to fly 737s. Ask a Pilot at AS if they feel any "growth".

LupineChemist wrote:

How much tourist infrastructure is there in Belize? It just seems like there's a ton of service for a country of under 400k people.

In 2019, Belize had over 500,000 overnight tourist arrivals. (https://infogram.com/overnight-tourist- ... j7kjq1x2l0) Last figures I saw were that 20-25% of the Belize GDP is from tourism. Yes, they have a well-established tourist infrastructure.

Take this with a grain of salt as I can't find statistics for Belize tourism by state/province...but I can say from personal observation that tourism from the PNW (including British Columbia, Alberta and Alaska) seems to be extremely strong. A large ex-pat population from the area as well.

As an annual visitor, I welcome the SEA flights and will be taking advantage of them.

SocalApproach wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Basically just replacing the retiring Airbuses. Barely a "growth" order, unless your Horizon/Skywest

Called this 2 years ago and the main AS fanboys here on a.net begged to differ. Its just becoming more and more obvious. I chuckled at the OneWorld announcement. They are once again a regional feeder for the big boys who happens to fly 737s. Ask a Pilot at AS if they feel any "growth".

As discussed above and explained here: https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1 ... 10822?s=20 the MAX's really are for growth as there are more than enough current orders to replace the A320s.

SocalApproach wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Basically just replacing the retiring Airbuses. Barely a "growth" order, unless your Horizon/Skywest

Called this 2 years ago and the main AS fanboys here on a.net begged to differ. Its just becoming more and more obvious. I chuckled at the OneWorld announcement. They are once again a regional feeder for the big boys who happens to fly 737s. Ask a Pilot at AS if they feel any "growth".

Stop. The 7M9s are higher gauge than the A320s they’re replacing, and there are going to be more frames arriving than the number of Airbii that are leaving. It’s growth. And no one comes to AS because they think they might fly 787s someday.

BoeingGuy wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The mainline pilots are not going to like this.

If AS were retiring mainline aircraft and not replacing them (instead of growing the fleet), AS pilots might have a reason to complain.

Entitlement is a cancer.

I don’t get why the mainline pilots wouldn’t like it either. The E175s are mostly deployed in markets that can’t support a 737. Either those markets are flown with smaller airplanes, or they aren’t flown at all by AS. I don’t see how that affects mainline pilot employment.

Plus Air Group has a track record of using the E175s to start routes that later mature onto the 737.

jbs2886 wrote:

SocalApproach wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Basically just replacing the retiring Airbuses. Barely a "growth" order, unless your Horizon/Skywest

Called this 2 years ago and the main AS fanboys here on a.net begged to differ. Its just becoming more and more obvious. I chuckled at the OneWorld announcement. They are once again a regional feeder for the big boys who happens to fly 737s. Ask a Pilot at AS if they feel any "growth".

As discussed above and explained here: https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1 ... 10822?s=20 the MAX's really are for growth as there are more than enough current orders to replace the A320s.

That does not paint an accurate picture since it does not include the total of Airbus aircraft that has already been returned.

check page 43 on the 2019 10-K
https://investor.alaskaair.com/static-f ... 4e889d7b97

They had 237 mainline aircraft at the end of 2019 and 95 RJs. They were slated to have 246 mainline aircraft by the end of 2020.

Based on that tweet, they had planned for 232 mainline and 97 RJs by the end of 2023. So they would've had fewer mainline aircraft at end of 2023 than at 2019.

With this additional orders.

They will have 111 RJs and 241 mainline aircraft by the end of 2023.

Even if we assume no further mainline retirement, that is really minimal fleet growth in mainline fleet size. Sure, you can make the argument that AS is growing through upgauging, but you can't add medium/long haul frequencies through upgauging. All the while RJ fleet is growing quite a bit. You can see why a mainline pilot might not be happy here. With Airbus basically going away, AS might not even need to add to their pilot ranks.

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

SocalApproach wrote:

Called this 2 years ago and the main AS fanboys here on a.net begged to differ. Its just becoming more and more obvious. I chuckled at the OneWorld announcement. They are once again a regional feeder for the big boys who happens to fly 737s. Ask a Pilot at AS if they feel any "growth".

As discussed above and explained here: https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1 ... 10822?s=20 the MAX's really are for growth as there are more than enough current orders to replace the A320s.

That does not paint an accurate picture since it does not include the total of Airbus aircraft that has already been returned.

check page 43 on the 2019 10-K
https://investor.alaskaair.com/static-f ... 4e889d7b97

They had 237 mainline aircraft at the end of 2019 and 95 RJs. They were slated to have 246 mainline aircraft by the end of 2020.

Based on that tweet, they had planned for 232 mainline and 97 RJs by the end of 2023. So they would've had fewer mainline aircraft at end of 2023 than at 2019.

With this additional orders.

They will have 111 RJs and 241 mainline aircraft by the end of 2023.

Even if we assume no further mainline retirement, that is really minimal fleet growth in mainline fleet size. Sure, you can make the argument that AS is growing through upgauging, but you can't add medium/long haul frequencies through upgauging. All the while RJ fleet is growing quite a bit. You can see why a mainline pilot might not be happy here. With Airbus basically going away, AS might not even need to add to their pilot ranks.

I'd disagree, but you do have to consider the baseline changed for airlines - it isn't the 2019 fleet or staffing levels. Let's face it, they will now have more aircraft in 2022, 2023, and 2024 than they planned even with the Airbus retirements.

32andBelow wrote:

Alaskans love going to the beach

Alaska has beaches. They tend to be a little bit chilly, though...

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

SocalApproach wrote:

Called this 2 years ago and the main AS fanboys here on a.net begged to differ. Its just becoming more and more obvious. I chuckled at the OneWorld announcement. They are once again a regional feeder for the big boys who happens to fly 737s. Ask a Pilot at AS if they feel any "growth".

As discussed above and explained here: https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1 ... 10822?s=20 the MAX's really are for growth as there are more than enough current orders to replace the A320s.

That does not paint an accurate picture since it does not include the total of Airbus aircraft that has already been returned.

check page 43 on the 2019 10-K
https://investor.alaskaair.com/static-f ... 4e889d7b97

They had 237 mainline aircraft at the end of 2019 and 95 RJs. They were slated to have 246 mainline aircraft by the end of 2020.

Based on that tweet, they had planned for 232 mainline and 97 RJs by the end of 2023. So they would've had fewer mainline aircraft at end of 2023 than at 2019.

With this additional orders.

They will have 111 RJs and 241 mainline aircraft by the end of 2023.

Even if we assume no further mainline retirement, that is really minimal fleet growth in mainline fleet size. Sure, you can make the argument that AS is growing through upgauging, but you can't add medium/long haul frequencies through upgauging. All the while RJ fleet is growing quite a bit. You can see why a mainline pilot might not be happy here. With Airbus basically going away, AS might not even need to add to their pilot ranks.

The Airbus fleet at its maximum was 71 aircraft. 10 319s, 53 320s and 10 321 neos. The 319s are already gone, the 320s should be gone in 2024, the 321 neos, unless something changes, are in the fleet for another seven years or more. So, 53 Airbus aircraft need to be replaced over the next few years. In November Alaska announced they were selling ten owned A320s to a leasing company and then leasing 13 737-9 MAX aircraft. Todays announcement puts the purchase commitments for 737-9 MAX aircraft at 81, along with the commitment to lease an additional 13, puts the 737-9 MAX aircraft at 94 vs. the retirement of 63 Airbus aircraft. Sounds like some growth aircraft is in there. There are still 39 options which would most likely growth aircraft unless some NGs start to be retired. Alaska has a long history of taking their optioned aircraft. There is plenty of time for additional orders for growth and A321 neo replacement towards the end of the decade.

LupineChemist wrote:

How much tourist infrastructure is there in Belize? It just seems like there's a ton of service for a country of under 400k people.

There is actually alot. Like enough for the capacity. I just got back and stayed in San Ignacio and San Pedro. San Ignacio has at least 10 jungle resorts / lodges as well as much cheaper hotel / hostel options. San Pedro / Ambergis Caye has ALOT. Its the most popular tourist destination. Mariott just opened a new facility down there recently. Most of the flights (i think) are not daily and sometimes seasonal (UA from EWR is seasonal and only on the weekends this year) so its not that packed.

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

SocalApproach wrote:

Called this 2 years ago and the main AS fanboys here on a.net begged to differ. Its just becoming more and more obvious. I chuckled at the OneWorld announcement. They are once again a regional feeder for the big boys who happens to fly 737s. Ask a Pilot at AS if they feel any "growth".

As discussed above and explained here: https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1 ... 10822?s=20 the MAX's really are for growth as there are more than enough current orders to replace the A320s.

That does not paint an accurate picture since it does not include the total of Airbus aircraft that has already been returned.

check page 43 on the 2019 10-K
https://investor.alaskaair.com/static-f ... 4e889d7b97

They had 237 mainline aircraft at the end of 2019 and 95 RJs. They were slated to have 246 mainline aircraft by the end of 2020.

Based on that tweet, they had planned for 232 mainline and 97 RJs by the end of 2023. So they would've had fewer mainline aircraft at end of 2023 than at 2019.

With this additional orders.

They will have 111 RJs and 241 mainline aircraft by the end of 2023.

Even if we assume no further mainline retirement, that is really minimal fleet growth in mainline fleet size. Sure, you can make the argument that AS is growing through upgauging, but you can't add medium/long haul frequencies through upgauging. All the while RJ fleet is growing quite a bit. You can see why a mainline pilot might not be happy here. With Airbus basically going away, AS might not even need to add to their pilot ranks.

They will have 94 combined purchased and leased MAX’s which is 20+ more mainline planes than the Airbus fleet ever was at its maximum, and 30+ more if they keep the NEO’s through the end of their leases. The only other mainline planes Alaska has that could even be retirement candidates are the -700’s and some of the non-ER 900’s.

32andBelow wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Flying like LAX-SEA-BZE makes no sense when SEA-LAX-BZE does

SMH, read my posts. I said it makes sense for much of the PNW that is already backtracking through SEA for most connections. I also said I think LAX/SEA-BZE makes sense to capture AS's full market on the west coast. I never said LAX-SEA-BZE makes sense.

Also, I'll state again, the obsession that people won't backtrack is false. The SEA hub relies almost entirely on backtracking, as do many other hubs.

There is a rule in GDS called circuitry. There is an acceptable amount of backtracking. I’d say running it through lax is much more acceptable than running it through sea for a majority of their network

Haven’t you guys flown highly circuitous routes?

Back in 2018 I was temporarily living in Wine Country, working full time for a winery in Healdsburg. To visit my family from nearby Santa Rosa/Sonoma County Airport (STS), where I could get a free ride to/from the airport, options were few. In fact, AS may very well have been the only airline serving the airport at that time - fortunes sure have changed for STS since then!

I wonder if there are a number of smaller markets in the western U.S. like STS where connecting through SEA is way out of the way, but one of the only options nonetheless. Places like Walla Walla spring to mind. Even someone flying, say, Billings to Miami might have few options other than a connection via SEA.

To visit my Grandma in Chicago from the nearby local airport, I took the cheapest fare I could find: AS STS-SEA-PDX-ORD. I remember being thrilled to, after a Q400 to SEA and then an E-175 to PDX, being thrilled to find a VX A320 operating the red eye service from Portland to O’Hare. It was a long night, but I had a nice dinner at the Seattle airport and, eventually, a very comfortable overnight ride from the West Coast to Chicago.

Perhaps even more circuitous than my AS routing that day was a flight on NK a number of years ago. I thought I was crazy for flying DCA-FLL-LAX, but as we all know, Spirit Airlines is always the cheapest! The girl next to me on the DCA-FLL flight must have known the same, as she was flying DCA-FLL-ATL that day. FLL Terminal 4 was such a dump and I’m glad it’s gone.. but circuitous routings through FLL have long been one of the cheapest ways to cross the country!

jbs2886 wrote:

I'd disagree, but you do have to consider the baseline changed for airlines - it isn't the 2019 fleet or staffing levels. Let's face it, they will now have more aircraft in 2022, 2023, and 2024 than they planned even with the Airbus retirements.

What's there to disagree? Numbers speak for themselves. They will not have more aircraft than end of 2019 until end of 2023.

I'd be really surprised if those A321NEOs do not leave their fleet the moment that leasing market picks up again. Probably to US based carrier, since most of rest of the world is taking a lot longer to recover.

What's the over and under on the A321NEOs ending up at AA by 2024?

It's extremely costly to keep a second fleet type of just 10 aircraft. Doesn't make sense at all.

WkndWanderer wrote:

They will have 94 combined purchased and leased MAX’s which is 20+ more mainline planes than the Airbus fleet ever was at its maximum, and 30+ more if they keep the NEO’s through the end of their leases. The only other mainline planes Alaska has that could even be retirement candidates are the -700’s and some of the non-ER 900’s.

Please look at what's posted in 10-K and what they said in their website and what they had in their quarterly report. I'm not making any of this up. This not rocket science. Those A321NEOs aren't sticking around much longer after the A320s leave.

My brother (Alaska Airlines customer rep) is getting a call tonight...because to me, this is the wtf aviation news of the day..Alaska Airlines to Belize???

alfa164 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Alaskans love going to the beach

Alaska has beaches. They tend to be a little bit chilly, though...

Like the one in Barrow I think it is?

EA CO AS wrote:

SocalApproach wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Basically just replacing the retiring Airbuses. Barely a "growth" order, unless your Horizon/Skywest

Called this 2 years ago and the main AS fanboys here on a.net begged to differ. Its just becoming more and more obvious. I chuckled at the OneWorld announcement. They are once again a regional feeder for the big boys who happens to fly 737s. Ask a Pilot at AS if they feel any "growth".

Stop. The 7M9s are higher gauge than the A320s they’re replacing, and there are going to be more frames arriving than the number of Airbii that are leaving. It’s growth. And no one comes to AS because they think they might fly 787s someday.

You stop. You have been singing this tune for years. The mainline fleet is not growing. The regional frames are another story. Now you're spinning it to include aircraft capacity? I cant anymore with the AS fanboys/employees etc. Nothing wrong with being a regional carrier that happens to fly 737s but enough is enough with the nonsense. I said this 2 years ago and Ill say it again. No pilot at AS thinks additional E175 frames for QX/OO is "growth".

SocalApproach wrote:

No pilot at AS thinks additional E175 frames for QX/OO is "growth".

Stop being ridiculous; no one refers to QX/OO as mainline growth, but you'd be silly to overlook that those do provide the platform for mainline growth as the markets these frames enter mature over time. The major growth comes from the 81 firm aircraft on order and 39 remaining options. And lest we forget, AS has a history of not only taking up EVERY SINGLE OPTION they've had over the past 2 decades, but adding onto them as well.

But again, it's important to point out that to a mainline pilot at AS, growth has always meant higher wages as you move up the payscale, better lines of flying, and higher overall job security as the company grows. It's about quicker times from right seat to left seat. It's NOT, and never has been, about eventually flying widebodies to LHR. And I'd like to think that anyone flying for AS knew that coming in.

EA CO AS wrote:

SocalApproach wrote:

No pilot at AS thinks additional E175 frames for QX/OO is "growth".

Stop being ridiculous; no one refers to QX/OO as mainline growth, but you'd be silly to overlook that those do provide the platform for mainline growth as the markets these frames enter mature over time. The major growth comes from the 81 firm aircraft on order and 39 remaining options. And lest we forget, AS has a history of not only taking up EVERY SINGLE OPTION they've had over the past 2 decades, but adding onto them as well.

But again, it's important to point out that to a mainline pilot at AS, growth has always meant higher wages as you move up the payscale, better lines of flying, and higher overall job security as the company grows. It's about quicker times from right seat to left seat. It's NOT, and never has been, about eventually flying widebodies to LHR. And I'd like to think that anyone flying for AS knew that coming in.

Nobody is talking about widebody aircraft. I have not brought that up once. We are talking about mainline airframe growth or at least I am. The numbers are just not there. I don't know what else to say regarding this. People are catching on though finally. The growth is at QX/OO.

What’s with the obsessions of growth? With retirements, there’s plenty of opportunities for pilots to advance in seniority and move from right seat to left. Growth for the sake of giving more lines of flying is a great way to go bankrupt.

SocalApproach wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

SocalApproach wrote:

No pilot at AS thinks additional E175 frames for QX/OO is "growth".

Stop being ridiculous; no one refers to QX/OO as mainline growth, but you'd be silly to overlook that those do provide the platform for mainline growth as the markets these frames enter mature over time. The major growth comes from the 81 firm aircraft on order and 39 remaining options. And lest we forget, AS has a history of not only taking up EVERY SINGLE OPTION they've had over the past 2 decades, but adding onto them as well.

But again, it's important to point out that to a mainline pilot at AS, growth has always meant higher wages as you move up the payscale, better lines of flying, and higher overall job security as the company grows. It's about quicker times from right seat to left seat. It's NOT, and never has been, about eventually flying widebodies to LHR. And I'd like to think that anyone flying for AS knew that coming in.

Nobody is talking about widebody aircraft. I have not brought that up once. We are talking about mainline airframe growth or at least I am. The numbers are just not there. I don't know what else to say regarding this. People are catching on though finally. The growth is at QX/OO.

The numbers are there. 31 additional orders for purchase and leased MAX aircraft over and above all of the retiring Airbus aircraft over the next few years along with the 34 options, which EA CO AS has already expressed, Alaska exercises their options and quite often when they turn those options into purchase commitments, they add additional options.

ericm2031 wrote:

BZE will be 5x weekly LAX, 2x weekly from SEA. Seasonal, potentially year round if it performs well.

This schedule allocation doesn't seem to fit the dimension of the annual demand of passegers heading to Belize.
It had been posted their limited weekly frequencies from LAX, ORD, DEN, CLT and EWR.
Having said that, why would AS sudddenly launch 5x weekly frequencies from LA, if both UA and AA are currently working on a weekly basis ?

Regards.

SANFan wrote:

The gateway(s) and frequencies were definitely not announced by Alaska in the PR and Belize City does not even appear on AS's website. Probably for a reason.

We need a source, or at the very least the post will undoubtedly disappear as will possibly someone's job...

bb

The gateways were not announced clearly/professionally as such but the routes indeed are LAX and SEA to BZE. I have no idea about frequencies nor any kind of company secrets, but it was literally confirmed by Alaska's Instagram account in a response to a question on their post asking where the services would be from...

Scroll through the comments on this post and you should be able to find it relatively quickly:
https://www.instagram.com/p/COyEoyhj3LI/

EA CO AS wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

They also announced today they’ll be adding some lines of Airbus flying by bringing some A320s out of storage.

Also adding 3 seats to the -800s

BZE will be 5x weekly LAX, 2x weekly from SEA. Seasonal, potentially year round if it performs well.

Those are very bold claims. I'll believe it when a source is made public. I really don't think SEA-BZE will be likely to happen at all.

It's true. Service will run seasonally from November to May and will be expanded to year-round if it performs well. LAXBZE is 5X weekly and SEABZE 2X weekly.

I digress. SEA-BZE seems like a terrible idea, IMO. Why do they have to fly to every city within their network from Seattle? Even SAN and SFO seem like better choices where local demand is almost certainly higher.

AC4500 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Those are very bold claims. I'll believe it when a source is made public. I really don't think SEA-BZE will be likely to happen at all.

It's true. Service will run seasonally from November to May and will be expanded to year-round if it performs well. LAXBZE is 5X weekly and SEABZE 2X weekly.

I digress. SEA-BZE seems like a terrible idea, IMO. Why do they have to fly to every city within their network from Seattle? Even SAN and SFO seem like better choices where local demand is almost certainly higher.

I'm really bummed they don't fly SEA-PAE. That'd be an excellent flight. ::duck::

AC4500 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Those are very bold claims. I'll believe it when a source is made public. I really don't think SEA-BZE will be likely to happen at all.

It's true. Service will run seasonally from November to May and will be expanded to year-round if it performs well. LAXBZE is 5X weekly and SEABZE 2X weekly.

I digress. SEA-BZE seems like a terrible idea, IMO. Why do they have to fly to every city within their network from Seattle? Even SAN and SFO seem like better choices where local demand is almost certainly higher.

Glad you are smarter than AS’s Network Planning Department.

AS doesn’t fly to every destination from SEA. They don’t do ZLO, ZIH, MZT (although they did in the past), GDL, LTO, SJO and LIR from SEA. They didn’t serve MRY from SEA until recently. They didn’t do LAP, MEX, or MMH from SEA when they did those routes.

How do you know what local demand is from SEA-BZE? AS makes CUN work from SEA but it didn’t work from SFO.

USAirKid wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

It's true. Service will run seasonally from November to May and will be expanded to year-round if it performs well. LAXBZE is 5X weekly and SEABZE 2X weekly.

I digress. SEA-BZE seems like a terrible idea, IMO. Why do they have to fly to every city within their network from Seattle? Even SAN and SFO seem like better choices where local demand is almost certainly higher.

I'm really bummed they don't fly SEA-PAE. That'd be an excellent flight. ::duck::

That would be awesome. I would take that for connections over driving or the bus and light rail any day.

SJOtoLIR wrote:

Having said that, why would AS sudddenly launch 5x weekly frequencies from LA, if both UA and AA are currently working on a weekly basis ?

AA flies to BZE twice daily, once from MIA and once from DFW. On top of that they've scheduled some sub-daily CLT and LAX turns (or at least they have in the past). UA flies twice daily from IAH plus once or twice weekly from a number of other hubs. Those additional flights are mostly seasonal/Covid flying (hard to keep it all straight). DL flies daily from ATL. I'm not sure if they've scheduled any extra trips. AS coming in at 5x weekly would not be much compared to what's already there.

SJOtoLIR wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

BZE will be 5x weekly LAX, 2x weekly from SEA. Seasonal, potentially year round if it performs well.

This schedule allocation doesn't seem to fit the dimension of the annual demand of passegers heading to Belize.
It had been posted their limited weekly frequencies from LAX, ORD, DEN, CLT and EWR.
Having said that, why would AS sudddenly launch 5x weekly frequencies from LA, if both UA and AA are currently working on a weekly basis ?

Regards.

When I was down there last week some workers told me that now is slow season. Peak is in the winter months, so maybe Alaska is anticpating more demand then.

Does anyone know AA / UA's precovid winter schedule from LAX?

d8s wrote:

SA280 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The mainline pilots are not going to like this.

On the other hand, passengers will love it!

No one loves the cramped E175's, where overhead bins cannot hold a backpack...

And no plugs in Y...unlike their mainline fleet.

BoeingGuy wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

It's true. Service will run seasonally from November to May and will be expanded to year-round if it performs well. LAXBZE is 5X weekly and SEABZE 2X weekly.

I digress. SEA-BZE seems like a terrible idea, IMO. Why do they have to fly to every city within their network from Seattle? Even SAN and SFO seem like better choices where local demand is almost certainly higher.

Glad you are smarter than AS’s Network Planning Department.

AS doesn’t fly to every destination from SEA. They don’t do ZLO, ZIH, MZT (although they did in the past), GDL, LTO, SJO and LIR from SEA. They didn’t serve MRY from SEA until recently. They didn’t do LAP, MEX, or MMH from SEA when they did those routes.

How do you know what local demand is from SEA-BZE? AS makes CUN work from SEA but it didn’t work from SFO.

Almost every single destination that you listed in which AS doesn't fly to from SEA is in Mexico/Central America. That should tell you enough as to why SEA-BZE will fail.

As for MRY and MMH, I guess those are two outliers. Because of the short runway length at MMH, they would have only been able to fly a Q400 on SEA-MMH which is obviously not feasible. SEA-MRY only started when they acquired more E175s.

EA CO AS wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

They also announced today they’ll be adding some lines of Airbus flying by bringing some A320s out of storage.

Also adding 3 seats to the -800s

BZE will be 5x weekly LAX, 2x weekly from SEA. Seasonal, potentially year round if it performs well.

Those are very bold claims. I'll believe it when a source is made public. I really don't think SEA-BZE will be likely to happen at all.

It's true. Service will run seasonally from November to May and will be expanded to year-round if it performs well. LAXBZE is 5X weekly and SEABZE 2X weekly.

I'm a bit skeptical on SEABZE. This will be SEA's first Caribbean route, hoping it sticks.

Zidane wrote:

I'm a bit skeptical on SEABZE. This will be SEA's first Caribbean route, hoping it sticks.

Belize is Central America, not Caribbean. Its pretty close to CUN.

Zidane wrote:

I'm a bit skeptical on SEABZE. This will be SEA's first Caribbean route, hoping it sticks.

I wouldn't write off SEA-BZE immediately. I think it should be fine at 2x weekly - probably Fri and Sat. But also by that metric, if you are counting BZE as Caribbean, wouldn't CUN count as Caribbean also?

I don't see why SEA-BZE can't work. And yes, AS will get some connection through SEA to BZE.