When AS finally retires the 738 than what??

I'm sure Alaska Airlines will replace them with the MAX9. I wish they ordered the MAX10 instead.

USAirKid wrote:

b777900 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

AS will use the 737-800 or 737-8 out of DCA. Just like they used the -800 for many years previously.

When AS finally retires the 738 than what?? Will AS ever try for new longer range fleet for transcons..

Well they’ve probably got 20 years until they retire the 7M8…

AS doesn't even have any MAX-8's, only the MAX-9, and that's all they have on order. So the question remains - what plane will fly from airports like DCA or some of the smaller airports that see mainline service in Alaska?

airportugal310 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Lootess wrote:

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

Russell Wilson is the most recognizable face of the Seahawks, and has been one of the better NFL players in general. Who cares if Delta is the "official airline of the Seahawks" - Alaska has managed to cut Delta off at the knees here by their association with the most recognizable and popular player on the team. Ask any Seattlite who they think is the actual official airline and the majority would probably say Alaska because of the relentless advertising during football season using Russell Wilson. Delta wasted their money.

I don’t think you know much about football with a statement like that. Just what they spoon feed people in Seattle I’d guess

You're not wrong - which only lends more truth to what I'm saying. Russell Wilson is, hands down, the most recognizable Seahawk currently playing in Seattle. Those that know football and those that don't know who he is for the most part. His name in Seattle is synonymous with the Seahawks. Alaska uses his name all over TV and radio ads during football season. Delta wasted their money.

ASFlyer wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

b777900 wrote:

When AS finally retires the 738 than what?? Will AS ever try for new longer range fleet for transcons..

Well they’ve probably got 20 years until they retire the 7M8…

AS doesn't even have any MAX-8's, only the MAX-9, and that's all they have on order. So the question remains - what plane will fly from airports like DCA or some of the smaller airports that see mainline service in Alaska?

Do we know if the 737 MAX 9 can do it? Everyone is assuming no. Further, we know the 738 can and AS hasn't announced a replacement for those yet, so this question is highly premature and to rule out the MAX 8 when there isn't even a 738 replacement plan is mistaken.

Polot wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

I imagine there's not a single corporation in America who would have relished their name being associated with the Superdome after Katrina.

You mean like Mercedes Benz and Caesars Entertainment, both of whom acquired the naming rights to the Superdome after Katrina?

Correnct. I mean to say DURING Katrina.

Naming rights are obviously more of a positive than a negative, I was just trying to point out that some of the same questions earlier people brought up (Subway and Jarrad) can be asked of buildings as well.

b777900 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

AS will offer fewer seats.

AS will use the 737-800 or 737-8 out of DCA. Just like they used the -800 for many years previously.

When AS finally retires the 738 than what?? Will AS ever try for new longer range fleet for transcons..

Probably whatever exists in the mid 2030s that will best replace a 738. They have 20 frames delivered in 2009 or more recently. These frames will last well into the 2030s until a plane which probably does not currently exist will replace them. The oldest 738, Ship 546 won’t turn 20 for another 3 years and 5 months. The AS Fleet isn’t like the US3 where frames were delivered in the late 1990s into the early 2000s to replace 727s. The AS 738 Fleet replaced the AS 727 replacement, the MD83.

chrisair wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

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

No different inside. Or at least the earlier version of the plane was. Can't imagine they'll do anything different now.

The only one that was different inside was the Starliner. That one was pretty cool with all the photos on the bins. If I recall, the Salmon plane had a plaque inside, as did the Disneyland one with Minnie on the front door (is that one even flying yet?).

Spirit of Make a Wish had Disney art on the bins. If I recall correctly the 100 years of Boeing aircraft had/has a plaque on one of the galley walls. Those are the only two specials I’ve ever flown on.

Would it be profitable if Alaska Airlines fly to other hubs even though they don't have any connections?

Example: Spokane to Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas & Phoenix.

AS needs to invest in their hard product and not waste money on airplane paint.

Saw it a few days ago! Love it!! And I love Russell Wilson. In fact, saw him this morning. That man is dedicated to what he does. He is the first to arrive, and the last to leave. Still goes to Children's hospital weekly, and is just a great hearted man. How cool to have a plane dedicated to him!

Serious question. Can Alaska Airlines grow/add more flights out of Los Angeles International, San Diego International & San Francisco International?

dc10lover wrote:

Would it be profitable if Alaska Airlines fly to other hubs even though they don't have any connections?

Example: Spokane to Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas & Phoenix.

I can’t see a UA or DL stronghold like DEN and SLC respectively being great choices. The AA hub/former hub of LAS & PHX might work.

toobz wrote:

AS needs to invest in their hard product and not waste money on airplane paint.

Eh last I checked they refitted most of their planes with new seats within the past five years or so?

dc10lover wrote:

Serious question. Can Alaska Airlines grow/add more flights out of Los Angeles International, San Diego International & San Francisco International?

Yes.

toobz wrote:

AS needs to invest in their hard product and not waste money on airplane paint.

I think they are potentially looking for a better premium product for longer haul & Hawaii, maybe initially on the MAX 9? There are even more options down the road. ANC-FLL? All only potential actions, but AS needs to bring a MINT style product in a small sub fleet of aircraft, for specific routes & they need to keep up closer to the competition JFK-LAX/SFO.

dc10lover wrote:

Serious question. Can Alaska Airlines grow/add more flights out of Los Angeles International, San Diego International & San Francisco International?

They can at LAX, even being down 3 gates for the 5.5 core, gate 61 and T6 renovations, gate 66 and 68A they don't seem to be taxing available gates. 68B is also closed but since it is a wide body gate I don't think they use it. Pretty certain they will be down 2-3 gate at LAX till sometime in 2024 when T6 renovations are scheduled to wrap up. As to where they might go there are lots of options as to where they might go but JFK isn't one of them as the are ended LAX-JFK.

dc10lover wrote:

Would it be profitable if Alaska Airlines fly to other hubs even though they don't have any connections?

Example: Spokane to Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas & Phoenix.

They do that now on some routes like BOI-AUS, BOI-ORD and soon PSP-AUS.

RWA380 wrote:

toobz wrote:

AS needs to invest in their hard product and not waste money on airplane paint.

I think they are potentially looking for a better premium product for longer haul & Hawaii, maybe initially on the MAX 9? There are even more options down the road. ANC-FLL? All only potential actions, but AS needs to bring a MINT style product in a small sub fleet of aircraft, for specific routes & they need to keep up closer to the competition JFK-LAX/SFO.

Didn't AS already announce that they are disposing their SFO-JFK route.

wedgetail737 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

toobz wrote:

AS needs to invest in their hard product and not waste money on airplane paint.

I think they are potentially looking for a better premium product for longer haul & Hawaii, maybe initially on the MAX 9? There are even more options down the road. ANC-FLL? All only potential actions, but AS needs to bring a MINT style product in a small sub fleet of aircraft, for specific routes & they need to keep up closer to the competition JFK-LAX/SFO.

Didn't AS already announce that they are disposing their SFO-JFK route.

As long as they have a usable gate, they could get 8-9 flights out of JFK. It may not mean they will return or not, but new product, reimagined schedule I'd imagine. AAG they said that about LGB ...

wedgetail737 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

toobz wrote:

AS needs to invest in their hard product and not waste money on airplane paint.

I think they are potentially looking for a better premium product for longer haul & Hawaii, maybe initially on the MAX 9? There are even more options down the road. ANC-FLL? All only potential actions, but AS needs to bring a MINT style product in a small sub fleet of aircraft, for specific routes & they need to keep up closer to the competition JFK-LAX/SFO.

Didn't AS already announce that they are disposing their SFO-JFK route.

No. LAX-JFK only, but LAX-EWR is supposed to remain. SFO-JFK/EWR are still on the schedule.

wedgetail737 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

toobz wrote:

AS needs to invest in their hard product and not waste money on airplane paint.

I think they are potentially looking for a better premium product for longer haul & Hawaii, maybe initially on the MAX 9? There are even more options down the road. ANC-FLL? All only potential actions, but AS needs to bring a MINT style product in a small sub fleet of aircraft, for specific routes & they need to keep up closer to the competition JFK-LAX/SFO.

Didn't AS already announce that they are disposing their SFO-JFK route.

No - they haven't said anything about SFO-JFK thus far.

LAX-JFK, well that's a different story... scheduled to be cut in October and I don't see anything that could lead to a reversal in that plan. They might end up cutting SFO-JFK as well at a later date, although maybe not, because the competition on LAX-NYC is just so stiff. SFO-NYC has stiff competition, sure - but much, much less than LAX-NYC.

And with regards to the previous post concerning Alaska adding a premium product on a subfleet - as much as I'd be thrilled to see that happen, I can't reasonably see how it ever will.

The first step to becoming a more premium carrier is most definitely *not* cutting your most premium route. LAX-JFK is being cut out of the network, and SFO-JFK might eventually get the axe as well. That doesn't bode well at all for a carrier that hypothetically plans on introducing some new type of Mint-esque lieflat direct-aisle-access premium transcon seat. Secondly - compared to all of its competitors - AS's transcon footprint really isn't that large at all, since (I'm guesstimating) 80% of all transcon flights depart from one airport - and the subset of "premium" transcon flights is so small that you can almost count them on your fingers:

EWR
4x SEA
4x LAX
3x SFO
1x PDX
1x SAN

JFK
4x SEA
4x SFO
2x PDX
2x SAN

And then there's a couple from DCA/IAD to each of these, plus some BOS flights sprinkled in there too.

Even still, this pales in comparison to the likes of UA, B6, DL, AA, etc - who have not only many more routes to worry about, but also way, way more frequencies to fly. Is it really worth AS's $$ to invest in a premium subfleet, or would it be better for them to focus on their core interest - more leisure-based flights as well as banked flights that suit their network better? Should they build up PDX as a reliever hub or try to increase their footprint with CA customers, or instead chase the sexy lieflat J market?

The only conceivable way that I think they could justify adding a premium transcon seat is to increase brand resonance with potential CA-based customers and highlight a new, premium experience to attract a richer (or corporate) customer pool.

ASFlyer wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

I think they are potentially looking for a better premium product for longer haul & Hawaii, maybe initially on the MAX 9? There are even more options down the road. ANC-FLL? All only potential actions, but AS needs to bring a MINT style product in a small sub fleet of aircraft, for specific routes & they need to keep up closer to the competition JFK-LAX/SFO.

Didn't AS already announce that they are disposing their SFO-JFK route.

No. LAX-JFK only, but LAX-EWR is supposed to remain. SFO-JFK/EWR are still on the schedule.

Oh...thank you for the correction.

ASFlyer wrote:

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.

Russell Wilson is the most recognizable face of the Seahawks, and has been one of the better NFL players in general. Who cares if Delta is the "official airline of the Seahawks" - Alaska has managed to cut Delta off at the knees here by their association with the most recognizable and popular player on the team. Ask any Seattlite who they think is the actual official airline and the majority would probably say Alaska because of the relentless advertising during football season using Russell Wilson. Delta wasted their money.

Um the 12th Man exists, but in any case Delta being the official airline locks AS out of any advertising at Centurylink field, and from using the Seattle Seahawks in any branding as an affiliated airline. Not to mention promotions, Delta360 lounges, and all sorts of goodwill that comes with the partnership. Alaska settles with Russell being the Chief Football Officer.

Delta didn't waste any money, if anything they learned a cold lesson never to repeat when they lost the Atlanta Falcons to AirTran back in the day.

Lootess wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Lootess wrote:

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

Russell Wilson is the most recognizable face of the Seahawks, and has been one of the better NFL players in general. Who cares if Delta is the "official airline of the Seahawks" - Alaska has managed to cut Delta off at the knees here by their association with the most recognizable and popular player on the team. Ask any Seattlite who they think is the actual official airline and the majority would probably say Alaska because of the relentless advertising during football season using Russell Wilson. Delta wasted their money.

Um the 12th Man exists, but in any case Delta being the official airline locks AS out of any advertising at Centurylink field, and from using the Seattle Seahawks in any branding as an affiliated airline. Not to mention promotions, Delta360 lounges, and all sorts of goodwill that comes with the partnership. Alaska settles with Russell being the Chief Football Officer.

Delta didn't waste any money, if anything they learned a cold lesson never to repeat when they lost the Atlanta Falcons to AirTran back in the day.

As for what airline gets to fly what team is all about who provides the best bang for their buck when it comes to transportation. It's like HA flying for the Las Vegas Raiders.

But AS has a lot of branding through out the PNW. They used to have to branding with the Portland Timbers...I don't they still have that. AS is the official airline of the upcoming Seattle Kraken NHL team. I hope AS will have a theme plane for them.

F9Animal wrote:

Saw it a few days ago! Love it!! And I love Russell Wilson. In fact, saw him this morning. That man is dedicated to what he does. He is the first to arrive, and the last to leave. Still goes to Children's hospital weekly, and is just a great hearted man. How cool to have a plane dedicated to him!

I volunteer at Seattle Children's Hospital too and I have never heard a staff member nor patient have anything but positive things to say about Russ. To a person, they all think the world of him. I've heard stories there about him telling his handlers that he couldn't leave to go do a radio interview etc until he saw every kid who asked to see him that day. Seems like he is the real deal. I've only met him once very briefly but he was very cordial when we chatted.

Lootess wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Lootess wrote:

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

Russell Wilson is the most recognizable face of the Seahawks, and has been one of the better NFL players in general. Who cares if Delta is the "official airline of the Seahawks" - Alaska has managed to cut Delta off at the knees here by their association with the most recognizable and popular player on the team. Ask any Seattlite who they think is the actual official airline and the majority would probably say Alaska because of the relentless advertising during football season using Russell Wilson. Delta wasted their money.

Um the 12th Man exists, but in any case Delta being the official airline locks AS out of any advertising at Centurylink field, and from using the Seattle Seahawks in any branding as an affiliated airline. Not to mention promotions, Delta360 lounges, and all sorts of goodwill that comes with the partnership. Alaska settles with Russell being the Chief Football Officer.

Delta didn't waste any money, if anything they learned a cold lesson never to repeat when they lost the Atlanta Falcons to AirTran back in the day.

um, okay. If you think so. I'm well aware what Delta gets by paying to sponsor the Seahawks as the "official airline" - it hasn't stopped their star player from promoting Deltas biggest competitor in Seattle on print, radio and TV ads right smack in the middle of the football season and through the rest of the year. It absolutely undermines Delta and diminishes any value they thought they were getting by paying to be the official airline. Alaska does settle but their investment is far less and it's paying off.

Scheduled updated through February 16, 2022.

PDX/SAN-PAE are back, and PDX-TUS is now on the 737.

Lots of cuts and suspensions all around, though.

Also noticing that AS is planning on utilizing the E175 on very long routes that normally use 737s.

AC4500 wrote:

Also noticing that AS is planning on utilizing the E175 on very long routes that normally use 737s.

Hopefully bookings increase that requires a 737.

AC4500 wrote:

Also noticing that AS is planning on utilizing the E175 on very long routes that normally use 737s.

Such as?

AC4500 wrote:

Scheduled updated through February 16, 2022.

PDX/SAN-PAE are back, and PDX-TUS is now on the 737.

Lots of cuts and suspensions all around, though.

When does AS resume PAE-SAN? I was booked on 12/27 and 1/4 and the flights were cancelled. I don’t seem it available now either.

AC4500 wrote:

Scheduled updated through February 16, 2022.

PDX/SAN-PAE are back, and PDX-TUS is now on the 737.

Lots of cuts and suspensions all around, though.

The off-peak season for flying is going to be pretty bleak...no thanks to the Delta variant. But I think you'll see a significant increase in flights come mid-Spring to early summer.

jbs2886 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Also noticing that AS is planning on utilizing the E175 on very long routes that normally use 737s.

Such as?

Keep in mind that AS uses E-175's on the SEA-ICT route. They have used the E-175's on a lot of east-west routes like SAN-MSP, PDX-MSP, SEA-OMA, SEA-MKE, SEA/PDX-DAL, DAL-LGA, DAL-DCA, SEA-OKC, SEA-MCI, etc.

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc. The E-175's do not have the legs to fly much further than that like SEA-CLE or SEA-MEM.

BoeingGuy wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Scheduled updated through February 16, 2022.

PDX/SAN-PAE are back, and PDX-TUS is now on the 737.

Lots of cuts and suspensions all around, though.

When does AS resume PAE-SAN? I was booked on 12/27 and 1/4 and the flights were cancelled. I don’t seem it available now either.

You're not going to believe this, but the PAE-SAN service comes back on 1/4, according to the AS website.

wedgetail737 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Scheduled updated through February 16, 2022.

PDX/SAN-PAE are back, and PDX-TUS is now on the 737.

Lots of cuts and suspensions all around, though.

When does AS resume PAE-SAN? I was booked on 12/27 and 1/4 and the flights were cancelled. I don’t seem it available now either.

You're not going to believe this, but the PAE-SAN service comes back on 1/4, according to the AS website.

Haha. I ended up changing my plan anyway and booking a vacation on PAE-TUS after Christmas. There have already been multiple schedule adjustments within a week after I booked it. I sure hope AS doesn’t pull it in the next 3 months now.

wedgetail737 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Also noticing that AS is planning on utilizing the E175 on very long routes that normally use 737s.

Such as?

Keep in mind that AS uses E-175's on the SEA-ICT route. They have used the E-175's on a lot of east-west routes like SAN-MSP, PDX-MSP, SEA-OMA, SEA-MKE, SEA/PDX-DAL, DAL-LGA, DAL-DCA, SEA-OKC, SEA-MCI, etc.

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc. The E-175's do not have the legs to fly much further than that like SEA-CLE or SEA-MEM.

Yeah, that's my point for asking which routes. AS has historically used E175s on a number of longer routes - whether its to maintain service despite seasonality of demand, frequency, aircraft routing, etc. I also don't see the negative aspect of having an E175 over a 737, as a mere "MVP" on AS, I have better upgrade chances on an E175 compared to 737s.

jbs2886 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Such as?

Keep in mind that AS uses E-175's on the SEA-ICT route. They have used the E-175's on a lot of east-west routes like SAN-MSP, PDX-MSP, SEA-OMA, SEA-MKE, SEA/PDX-DAL, DAL-LGA, DAL-DCA, SEA-OKC, SEA-MCI, etc.

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc. The E-175's do not have the legs to fly much further than that like SEA-CLE or SEA-MEM.

Yeah, that's my point for asking which routes. AS has historically used E175s on a number of longer routes - whether its to maintain service despite seasonality of demand, frequency, aircraft routing, etc. I also don't see the negative aspect of having an E175 over a 737, as a mere "MVP" on AS, I have better upgrade chances on an E175 compared to 737s.

I flew on the E-175 between SEA and ICT, RT. It was about 3-1/2 hour or so flight, but it was fine, especially in the E-175 1st class.

wedgetail737 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Also noticing that AS is planning on utilizing the E175 on very long routes that normally use 737s.

Such as?

Keep in mind that AS uses E-175's on the SEA-ICT route. They have used the E-175's on a lot of east-west routes like SAN-MSP, PDX-MSP, SEA-OMA, SEA-MKE, SEA/PDX-DAL, DAL-LGA, DAL-DCA, SEA-OKC, SEA-MCI, etc.

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc. The E-175's do not have the legs to fly much further than that like SEA-CLE or SEA-MEM.

AS DOES not fly DAL -DCA anymore///..

b777900 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Such as?

Keep in mind that AS uses E-175's on the SEA-ICT route. They have used the E-175's on a lot of east-west routes like SAN-MSP, PDX-MSP, SEA-OMA, SEA-MKE, SEA/PDX-DAL, DAL-LGA, DAL-DCA, SEA-OKC, SEA-MCI, etc.

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc. The E-175's do not have the legs to fly much further than that like SEA-CLE or SEA-MEM.

AS DOES not fly DAL -DCA anymore///..

Nor do they fly DAL-DCA, but his point was the E175 has been used (past tense) on those routes.

jbs2886 wrote:

b777900 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Keep in mind that AS uses E-175's on the SEA-ICT route. They have used the E-175's on a lot of east-west routes like SAN-MSP, PDX-MSP, SEA-OMA, SEA-MKE, SEA/PDX-DAL, DAL-LGA, DAL-DCA, SEA-OKC, SEA-MCI, etc.

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc. The E-175's do not have the legs to fly much further than that like SEA-CLE or SEA-MEM.

AS DOES not fly DAL -DCA anymore///..

Nor do they fly DAL-DCA, but his point was the E175 has been used (past tense) on those routes.

QX uses the E-175's between SEA-ANC. They used them on the PDX-ANC briefly.

wedgetail737 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

b777900 wrote:

AS DOES not fly DAL -DCA anymore///..

Nor do they fly DAL-DCA, but his point was the E175 has been used (past tense) on those routes.

QX uses the E-175's between SEA-ANC. They used them on the PDX-ANC briefly.

They use it 1 flight a day just to rotate it south. They should rotate it on something like FAIPDX imo. Or even something more creative

wedgetail737 wrote:

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc.

I had previously mentioned the possibility of AS adding SEA-DSM/TUL nonstop service using E-175 regional jets as AS would probably be able to easily fill an E-175 regional jet on these two routes if SEA-DSM/TUL demand were at pre-pandemic levels, and a post listing the PDEW's of these two routes (and some other top routes not currently served nonstop from SEA) can be found at viewtopic.php?t=1456065#p22581597.

jplatts wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc.

I had previously mentioned the possibility of AS adding SEA-DSM/TUL nonstop service using E-175 regional jets as AS would probably be able to easily fill an E-175 regional jet on these two routes if SEA-DSM/TUL demand were at pre-pandemic levels, and a post listing the PDEW's of these two routes (and some other top routes not currently served nonstop from SEA) can be found at viewtopic.php?t=1456065#p22581597.

https://tulsaworld.com/business/tulsa-a ... ac4c3.html

In 2018, the city of Tulsa was willing to offer $750,000 in federal grant money for nonstop SEA-TUL flights on AS. I don't know if $750K is a lot of money in terms of airline grants, but obviously AS never took up the opportunity, so I'm assuming that it wasn't enough to persuade them to launch the flights.

jbs2886 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Also noticing that AS is planning on utilizing the E175 on very long routes that normally use 737s.

Such as?

I'll clarify what I meant to point out earlier---
AS has extended many of their longer E175 routes within the recent schedule update, in particular to/from PDX (i.e. PDX-AUS/DFW/ORD). Before COVID, these were normally 737 routes. I figured that during the winter months when the jetstream is stronger, they would go back to utilizing 737s on these routes (albeit, at lower frequencies) since more fuel is required on the westbound legs.

jbs2886 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Such as?

Keep in mind that AS uses E-175's on the SEA-ICT route. They have used the E-175's on a lot of east-west routes like SAN-MSP, PDX-MSP, SEA-OMA, SEA-MKE, SEA/PDX-DAL, DAL-LGA, DAL-DCA, SEA-OKC, SEA-MCI, etc.

I think the E-715's are good starter airplanes for medium-range flights if they were to open something like SEA-TUL, SEA-DSM, etc. The E-175's do not have the legs to fly much further than that like SEA-CLE or SEA-MEM.

Yeah, that's my point for asking which routes. AS has historically used E175s on a number of longer routes - whether its to maintain service despite seasonality of demand, frequency, aircraft routing, etc. I also don't see the negative aspect of having an E175 over a 737, as a mere "MVP" on AS, I have better upgrade chances on an E175 compared to 737s.

I never mentioned a negative aspect to this, rather, it was just a mere observation within the schedule itself, that's all . In terms of comfort, I actually prefer the E175 over the 737, as there are no middle seats. What you mentioned about the MVP status upgrades makes sense as well...

AC4500 wrote:

https://tulsaworld.com/business/tulsa-airport-lands-grant-to-help-set-up-nonstop-flights-to-seattle/article_440ba2d9-1113-56e1-8236-44df448ac4c3.html

In 2018, the city of Tulsa was willing to offer $750,000 in federal grant money for nonstop SEA-TUL flights on AS. I don't know if $750K is a lot of money in terms of airline grants, but obviously AS never took up the opportunity, so I'm assuming that it wasn't enough to persuade them to launch the flights.

While AS didn't take advantage of the opportunity to add SEA-TUL nonstop service 3 years ago, AA has recently added TUL-AUS/MIA/DCA nonstop service. The possibility of AS adding SEA-TUL nonstop service is still there, especially with the recent adds that AA has made out of TUL along with AS's ability to tap into AA's FF base in the TUL market.

Anyone know why N915AK jas been on the ground in KOKC for a week.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N915AK.

Might it be related to the new 2Ku dome certification? I hope so as it was delayed into service compared to its' siblings and I don't want it to be another 'Tinkerbell' who had a reputation as a hanger queen.

gmcc wrote:

Anyone know why N915AK jas been on the ground in KOKC for a week.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N915AK.

Might it be related to the new 2Ku dome certification? I hope so as it was delayed into service compared to its' siblings and I don't want it to be another 'Tinkerbell' who had a reputation as a hanger queen.

I remember back during the MAX 9's inaugural flight, they gave me a timeline of September for the certification of the WiFi dome, which is hopefully why its in the hanger. Maybe then we'll finally see them make their way down to Florida.

gmcc wrote:

Anyone know why N915AK jas been on the ground in KOKC for a week.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N915AK.

Might it be related to the new 2Ku dome certification? I hope so as it was delayed into service compared to its' siblings and I don't want it to be another 'Tinkerbell' who had a reputation as a hanger queen.

It is 2KU MOD

ASFlyer wrote:

Lootess wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Russell Wilson is the most recognizable face of the Seahawks, and has been one of the better NFL players in general. Who cares if Delta is the "official airline of the Seahawks" - Alaska has managed to cut Delta off at the knees here by their association with the most recognizable and popular player on the team. Ask any Seattlite who they think is the actual official airline and the majority would probably say Alaska because of the relentless advertising during football season using Russell Wilson. Delta wasted their money.

Um the 12th Man exists, but in any case Delta being the official airline locks AS out of any advertising at Centurylink field, and from using the Seattle Seahawks in any branding as an affiliated airline. Not to mention promotions, Delta360 lounges, and all sorts of goodwill that comes with the partnership. Alaska settles with Russell being the Chief Football Officer.

Delta didn't waste any money, if anything they learned a cold lesson never to repeat when they lost the Atlanta Falcons to AirTran back in the day.

um, okay. If you think so. I'm well aware what Delta gets by paying to sponsor the Seahawks as the "official airline" - it hasn't stopped their star player from promoting Deltas biggest competitor in Seattle on print, radio and TV ads right smack in the middle of the football season and through the rest of the year. It absolutely undermines Delta and diminishes any value they thought they were getting by paying to be the official airline. Alaska does settle but their investment is far less and it's paying off.

Wrong again. Delta's 12Status program members have earned over 431 million miles over the last four seasons
https://news.delta.com/deltas-12status-program-rewarding-seattle-seahawks-fans-their-loyalty-returns-fifth-year

Lootess wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Lootess wrote:

Um the 12th Man exists, but in any case Delta being the official airline locks AS out of any advertising at Centurylink field, and from using the Seattle Seahawks in any branding as an affiliated airline. Not to mention promotions, Delta360 lounges, and all sorts of goodwill that comes with the partnership. Alaska settles with Russell being the Chief Football Officer.

Delta didn't waste any money, if anything they learned a cold lesson never to repeat when they lost the Atlanta Falcons to AirTran back in the day.

um, okay. If you think so. I'm well aware what Delta gets by paying to sponsor the Seahawks as the "official airline" - it hasn't stopped their star player from promoting Deltas biggest competitor in Seattle on print, radio and TV ads right smack in the middle of the football season and through the rest of the year. It absolutely undermines Delta and diminishes any value they thought they were getting by paying to be the official airline. Alaska does settle but their investment is far less and it's paying off.

Wrong again. Delta's 12Status program members have earned over 431 million miles over the last four seasons
https://news.delta.com/deltas-12status-program-rewarding-seattle-seahawks-fans-their-loyalty-returns-fifth-year

This doesn’t refute anything. It’s another fluff Delta promotional news release about miles they’re giving away to sign up for a free program. I never said Delta wasn’t getting value from the relationship, I said it was diminished because Alaska has their own relationship to the Seahawks by way of their star player. Alaska is paying far less and are maintaining their position in Seattle despite Deltas investment. Not paying to sponsor the Seahawks hasn’t diminished Alaska’s standing and they’re gaining by a separate agreement with the star player. And,for the record, he promotes the heck out of Alaska even on his own.