USAirKid wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

There is no source but wedge tail is right those planes need replacing very shortly as they’re getting old with mechanical problems for pax use. It just seems like that’s what they’re gonna do because otherwise there’s absolutely no reason for as to put the E175 in Alaska Other than replacement along with expansion. 737 700 in Alaska’s fleet is a black sheep. They only use them in Alaska because everywhere else they’re not great for their use case, that’s why they returned all those leases of 737 700s and a319’s very quickly.

Why does it seem like they’re gonna convert more aircraft to freighter versus just retire them? You’re making a lot of broad assumptions and speculating but stating as fact.

There has been scuttlebutt that AS would would like another freighter, and since the current freighters are all 737-700F, for commonality it seems they'd like another 737-700F. The Current 737-700Fs were all previous AS passenger planes.

I don’t think this would really matter. The 800(s) freighter(s) would just be bigger and be common with their passenger 800s. I’d assume they’d convert one or two or more of their current passenger 800s

NameOmitted wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 700 fleet given new cabins in 2018-19?

Yes...they have new cabins.

What's with all of the AS charter flights (flight numbers 9XXX)? The SEA-GSO flights are obvious. But I do see quite a few flying to various places from SEA to PHX, LAX, BWI, etc. Is this Alaska's effort get the stranded customers where they need to go?

I saw Alaska was re-adding their 2nd SAT - SEA , was going to book the morning departure for late June.
However; I see even for that period they are still only running the one afternoon. I wonder why?

wedgetail737 wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 700 fleet given new cabins in 2018-19?

Yes...they have new cabins.

Yep, curtsey of the a319

wedgetail737 wrote:

What's with all of the AS charter flights (flight numbers 9XXX)? The SEA-GSO flights are obvious. But I do see quite a few flying to various places from SEA to PHX, LAX, BWI, etc. Is this Alaska's effort get the stranded customers where they need to go?

Yah certain 9XXX are extra sections on Alaska

I can't see Alaska dumping the -700s - friends who work throughout the system said they are not as impacted by weight/balance/freight like the -800s are. I wouldn't be surprised if Alaska is trying to posture their position for a -7Max order. I think Alaska enjoys the flexibility of the current fleet.

usxguy wrote:

I can't see Alaska dumping the -700s - friends who work throughout the system said they are not as impacted by weight/balance/freight like the -800s are. I wouldn't be surprised if Alaska is trying to posture their position for a -7Max order. I think Alaska enjoys the flexibility of the current fleet.

Does the 737-7 MAX enjoy the same weight & balance as the 73G? I can see the 737-7MAX could have a small spot at AS but ultimately, AAG is trying to have only 2 737 types & then QX the175's. I'd not be surprised if the Q-400 was here still, in another decade. By then, AAG will be the launch customer on the Boeing 797 if it comes as is being currently suggested, 2 aisles, 767 type seating 2-3-2, carbon fiber with very efficient dual engines, 10 hours flight times easily in a mixed 3 cabin, with a sub fleet for International & a regular type domesic cabin.

gunsontheroof wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

Could someone point me to a list of which 737-900ERs are ETOPS rated?
I see they've upped ANC-HNL to a 739 sometimes, instead of the typical 738.

https://alaskafleetstatus.weebly.com/737-900er.html

It looks like all -900ERs were delivered ETOPS certified until March of 2016...all deliveries thereafter are not. All MAX-9 deliveries so far are ETOPS.

Here is the easy breakdown, all 900ER that end in AS are ETOPS, all 900ER that end in AK are NOT etops. Hope this helps!

Also so far every 737-9 MAX has been delivered ETOPS

seahawks7757 wrote:

gunsontheroof wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

Could someone point me to a list of which 737-900ERs are ETOPS rated?
I see they've upped ANC-HNL to a 739 sometimes, instead of the typical 738.

https://alaskafleetstatus.weebly.com/737-900er.html

It looks like all -900ERs were delivered ETOPS certified until March of 2016...all deliveries thereafter are not. All MAX-9 deliveries so far are ETOPS.

Here is the easy breakdown, all 900ER that end in AS are ETOPS, all 900ER that end in AK are NOT etops. Hope this helps!

Also so far every 737-9 MAX has been delivered ETOPS

Great piece of information! I never knew that. I did notice that "ETOPS" is painted on the nosegear doors of the MAX 9's.

Cardude2 wrote:

It seems as is pushing more out of SFO and downsizing at OAK and even SJC. It’s becoming a serious hub

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

NorCalApproach wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

It seems as is pushing more out of SFO and downsizing at OAK and even SJC. It’s becoming a serious hub

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

I believe they did fly SFO-BUR at one point. Although maybe I'm thinking of SJC-BUR.

AC4500 wrote:

NorCalApproach wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

It seems as is pushing more out of SFO and downsizing at OAK and even SJC. It’s becoming a serious hub

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

I believe they did fly SFO-BUR at one point. Although maybe I'm thinking of SJC-BUR.

Back in the late 1980's, after their absorption of Jet America, AS launched a "California Dreamin'" campaign, using the ext-Jet America aircraft...linking OAK and SJC to SoCal destinations of BUR, LGB, ONT and SNA. Most of the Jet America MD-80's were in basic Jet America colors with an "Alaska" bumper sticker. But some of the AS-heritage MD-80's sported the Roy Orbison sunglasses on the Eskimo.

theAviationGeek wrote:

Any thoughts on AS’ operations from DAL? I know that they dropped several VX markets during/after the merger; however, now that they are with oneWorld, would it make any sense to add 1 or 2 destinations from DAL that AS could fly allowing a oneWorld code?

I know there is a lot of lift between the entire DFW/DAL market and DEN, but do you think AS could jump into it from DAL?

It appears AS has managed to hold solid load factors from DAL with the cities *currently* served (obviously there’s some that have flopped in the past), it just seems like it could be a good time to test the waters and see what sticks — adding additional oneWorld presence to the local market.

Ryan

I sure hope so, would even love to see AS try some Midwest markets from DAL. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to see DAL become a central hub with E175 service to MSP, IND, MKE, DET, etc.

[twoid][/twoid]

NorCalApproach wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

It seems as is pushing more out of SFO and downsizing at OAK and even SJC. It’s becoming a serious hub

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

They could have done that organically tho.

32andBelow wrote:

They could have done that organically tho.

If done in a vacuum, sure. But in 2016, the choice was do it organically while competing against a B6 SFO hub, or buy VX and try to make it work where they’d always seen their next great expansion anyway.

They chose as wisely as they could have based on what the pre-COVID world looked like then.

RWA380 wrote:

usxguy wrote:

I can't see Alaska dumping the -700s - friends who work throughout the system said they are not as impacted by weight/balance/freight like the -800s are. I wouldn't be surprised if Alaska is trying to posture their position for a -7Max order. I think Alaska enjoys the flexibility of the current fleet.

Does the 737-7 MAX enjoy the same weight & balance as the 73G? I can see the 737-7MAX could have a small spot at AS but ultimately, AAG is trying to have only 2 737 types & then QX the175's. I'd not be surprised if the Q-400 was here still, in another decade. By then, AAG will be the launch customer on the Boeing 797 if it comes as is being currently suggested, 2 aisles, 767 type seating 2-3-2, carbon fiber with very efficient dual engines, 10 hours flight times easily in a mixed 3 cabin, with a sub fleet for International & a regular type domesic cabin.

Wow. That's definitely specific.

I thought the entire reason that AS entered OW had to do with them not wanting to touch widebodies. AS doesn't want the 787 now or ever, since it's simply easier for them to rely heavily on AA + other OW partners for feed at hubs, so why would they become the launch customer of a potential 797?

IMO, the launch customer for the MoM jet you're talking about would probably be UA. They (and DL to a lesser extent) are the ones in greatest need of that plane.

sfojvjets wrote:

I thought the entire reason that AS entered OW had to do with them not wanting to touch widebodies. AS doesn't want the 787 now or ever, since it's simply easier for them to rely heavily on AA + other OW partners for feed at hubs, so why would they become the launch customer of a potential 797?

IMO, the launch customer for the MoM jet you're talking about would probably be UA. They (and DL to a lesser extent) are the ones in greatest need of that plane.

I struggle with the idea of enough routes/frequencies where AS could fly 15-20 intercon-config widebodies a day, 11+ hours a day, in all seasons. If it can't use 15+ the type won't be economic: AS then shouldn't get any.

But, no, AS won't be the launch customer for any widebody -- it couldn't conceivably buy enough.

MAX 10s to come - you bet. Just a matter of time. Hawaii, Orlando, Cancun, SJD.

NorCalApproach wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

It seems as is pushing more out of SFO and downsizing at OAK and even SJC. It’s becoming a serious hub

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

Is it really a success though? SFO right now is the most RJ heavy large station in the network. Still does not have a 737 base. Which is troubling when A320s inevitably go away. The domestic market share by revenue has shrunk from 16% in Q4 2016 (between AS & VX) to 10% in Q3 2021. Bay Are as a whole has shrunk from 15% to 10.7% in Q3 2021.

tphuang wrote:

NorCalApproach wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

It seems as is pushing more out of SFO and downsizing at OAK and even SJC. It’s becoming a serious hub

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

Is it really a success though? SFO right now is the most RJ heavy large station in the network. Still does not have a 737 base. Which is troubling when A320s inevitably go away. The domestic market share by revenue has shrunk from 16% in Q4 2016 (between AS & VX) to 10% in Q3 2021. Bay Are as a whole has shrunk from 15% to 10.7% in Q3 2021.

If AS was flying larger aircraft on trunk routes they’d be attacked for having a small network and less utility out of SFO. I mean, for some the only definition of success for AS would be to have them operate A320s with JetBlue painted on the side.

MIflyer12 wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

I thought the entire reason that AS entered OW had to do with them not wanting to touch widebodies. AS doesn't want the 787 now or ever, since it's simply easier for them to rely heavily on AA + other OW partners for feed at hubs, so why would they become the launch customer of a potential 797?

IMO, the launch customer for the MoM jet you're talking about would probably be UA. They (and DL to a lesser extent) are the ones in greatest need of that plane.

I struggle with the idea of enough routes/frequencies where AS could fly 15-20 intercon-config widebodies a day, 11+ hours a day, in all seasons. If it can't use 15+ the type won't be economic: AS then shouldn't get any.

But, no, AS won't be the launch customer for any widebody -- it couldn't conceivably buy enough.

MAX 10s to come - you bet. Just a matter of time. Hawaii, Orlando, Cancun, SJD.

If northern pacific somehow works Alaska could quickly just copy and cancel them

But I think the new alleged plane would be like 767 size so they could just use it on their transcons and SEAANC. AS transcons are more like 1-2 a day so they could keep that and have more seats.

tphuang wrote:

NorCalApproach wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

It seems as is pushing more out of SFO and downsizing at OAK and even SJC. It’s becoming a serious hub

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

Is it really a success though? SFO right now is the most RJ heavy large station in the network. Still does not have a 737 base. Which is troubling when A320s inevitably go away. The domestic market share by revenue has shrunk from 16% in Q4 2016 (between AS & VX) to 10% in Q3 2021. Bay Are as a whole has shrunk from 15% to 10.7% in Q3 2021.

Why does it need a 737 base now? When the A320s go away they can make it a 737 base. That isn’t concerning at all.

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

NorCalApproach wrote:

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

Is it really a success though? SFO right now is the most RJ heavy large station in the network. Still does not have a 737 base. Which is troubling when A320s inevitably go away. The domestic market share by revenue has shrunk from 16% in Q4 2016 (between AS & VX) to 10% in Q3 2021. Bay Are as a whole has shrunk from 15% to 10.7% in Q3 2021.

Why does it need a 737 base now? When the A320s go away they can make it a 737 base. That isn’t concerning at all.

From what I read, there is no current plan for 737 base at SFO. And if you look at their current mainline operation there, they don't need a mainline base.

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Is it really a success though? SFO right now is the most RJ heavy large station in the network. Still does not have a 737 base. Which is troubling when A320s inevitably go away. The domestic market share by revenue has shrunk from 16% in Q4 2016 (between AS & VX) to 10% in Q3 2021. Bay Are as a whole has shrunk from 15% to 10.7% in Q3 2021.

Why does it need a 737 base now? When the A320s go away they can make it a 737 base. That isn’t concerning at all.

From what I read, there is no current plan for 737 base at SFO. And if you look at their current mainline operation there, they don't need a mainline base.

We've been told a SFO 737 base is coming.

Cardude2 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

It seems as is pushing more out of SFO and downsizing at OAK and even SJC. It’s becoming a serious hub

They should make SFO a serious hub considering how many gates they have there.

They are contrary to the San Francisco forum on here. Lounge and all. But that might change since deltas terminal I think is going to be torn down, no one’s sure.

Wait, where was it mentioned that DL’s terminal is going to be torn down? According to the SFO website, the C gates are only getting refreshed. After all, DL has its SkyClub there, and I don’t think DL is moving anywhere, unless someone has info to the contrary.

I guess the source if the confusion is the C gates being temporarily referred to as part of Terminal 2 - but that is only because currently there is no connection between the C gates and the T1 B gates due to the construction work going on for a new North check in lobby. My understanding is that once that lobby construction is finished, DL will get fresh check in counter space (along with HA, F9 and SY which were also slated to move into T1 from the Intl terminal).

If AS is indeed moving into T1 as rumored, I wouldn’t be surprised to see WN, F9 and SY in the T2 D gates instead. This would make the most sense from an operational point of view to enable seamless connections between oneworld/SkyTeam partners in B/C gates and A gates.

onwFan wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

They should make SFO a serious hub considering how many gates they have there.

They are contrary to the San Francisco forum on here. Lounge and all. But that might change since deltas terminal I think is going to be torn down, no one’s sure.

Wait, where was it mentioned that DL’s terminal is going to be torn down? According to the SFO website, the C gates are only getting refreshed. After all, DL has its SkyClub there, and I don’t think DL is moving anywhere, unless someone has info to the contrary.

I guess the source if the confusion is the C gates being temporarily referred to as part of Terminal 2 - but that is only because currently there is no connection between the C gates and the T1 B gates due to the construction work going on for a new North check in lobby. My understanding is that once that lobby construction is finished, DL will get fresh check in counter space (along with HA, F9 and SY which were also slated to move into T1 from the Intl terminal).

If AS is indeed moving into T1 as rumored, I wouldn’t be surprised to see WN, F9 and SY in the T2 D gates instead. This would make the most sense from an operational point of view to enable seamless connections between oneworld/SkyTeam partners in B/C gates and A gates.

If AS moves to T1, would they lose the number of gates as compared to their current location? Why would they move to T1 if they just opened their Alaska Lounge?

wedgetail737 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

NorCalApproach wrote:

AS appears to have succeeded at SFO where VX failed by throwing a lot of frequency on SFO-West Coast routes with E175 as opposed to seat capacity. By using the smaller plane, they've become fairly convenient with multiple non-stops not just to LAX, but SAN, PSP, and SNA. I'd love to see them try SFO-BUR, because it would probably do better than SJC-BUR did. UA mostly runs CRJ2s on that route and WN has fewer flights to BUR out of SFO than it does out of OAK.

They've also got more frequencies SFO-AUS now than UA thanks to the E175.

AS on an E175 is a much better experience than WN, especially in F in the solo seat, and they can fight WN (and UA) with frequencies using it.

I believe they did fly SFO-BUR at one point. Although maybe I'm thinking of SJC-BUR.

Back in the late 1980's, after their absorption of Jet America, AS launched a "California Dreamin'" campaign, using the ext-Jet America aircraft...linking OAK and SJC to SoCal destinations of BUR, LGB, ONT and SNA. Most of the Jet America MD-80's were in basic Jet America colors with an "Alaska" bumper sticker. But some of the AS-heritage MD-80's sported the Roy Orbison sunglasses on the Eskimo.

I was referring to their more recent operation (e.g. within the last 2-3 years) with their E175s, but thanks for the history lesson! It's interesting what a long way AS has come since then, as it seems like they've always had their foot within the intra-California market in some way or another...

khinstorff wrote:

I sure hope so, would even love to see AS try some Midwest markets from DAL. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to see DAL become a central hub with E175 service to MSP, IND, MKE, DET, etc.

With two gates and little to no hope for more, a hypothetical AS hub at DAL is non-starter. They dumped the VS flights to DCA and LGA from DAL pretty quickly. And now that they're "married" to AA and oneworld, I don't think they're gonna rock the boat in DAL/DFW. If AS could get 4-6 gates in MKE or the new MCI terminal, either of those options would be a better bet. Not much, but better. Or better yet, buy SY!

sfojvjets wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

usxguy wrote:

I can't see Alaska dumping the -700s - friends who work throughout the system said they are not as impacted by weight/balance/freight like the -800s are. I wouldn't be surprised if Alaska is trying to posture their position for a -7Max order. I think Alaska enjoys the flexibility of the current fleet.

Does the 737-7 MAX enjoy the same weight & balance as the 73G? I can see the 737-7MAX could have a small spot at AS but ultimately, AAG is trying to have only 2 737 types & then QX the175's. I'd not be surprised if the Q-400 was here still, in another decade. By then, AAG will be the launch customer on the Boeing 797 if it comes as is being currently suggested, 2 aisles, 767 type seating 2-3-2, carbon fiber with very efficient dual engines, 10 hours flight times easily in a mixed 3 cabin, with a sub fleet for International & a regular type domesic cabin.

Wow. That's definitely specific.

I thought the entire reason that AS entered OW had to do with them not wanting to touch widebodies. AS doesn't want the 787 now or ever, since it's simply easier for them to rely heavily on AA + other OW partners for feed at hubs, so why would they become the launch customer of a potential 797?

IMO, the launch customer for the MoM jet you're talking about would probably be UA. They (and DL to a lesser extent) are the ones in greatest need of that plane.

Behind doors, you'd be amazed at how close AS came to buying a few terrible teen 787's. Boeing talked them out of it & gave them a deal on a batch of 7M9s That was of course before AA &
AS partnered. But the idea has seriously been considered.

I think AA isn't worried about AS going International, that would likely be offered as an AA coded flight. I see the 787 being great in the summer SEA-ANC. In the winter SEA-HNL/OGG.

RWA380 wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Does the 737-7 MAX enjoy the same weight & balance as the 73G? I can see the 737-7MAX could have a small spot at AS but ultimately, AAG is trying to have only 2 737 types & then QX the175's. I'd not be surprised if the Q-400 was here still, in another decade. By then, AAG will be the launch customer on the Boeing 797 if it comes as is being currently suggested, 2 aisles, 767 type seating 2-3-2, carbon fiber with very efficient dual engines, 10 hours flight times easily in a mixed 3 cabin, with a sub fleet for International & a regular type domesic cabin.

Wow. That's definitely specific.

I thought the entire reason that AS entered OW had to do with them not wanting to touch widebodies. AS doesn't want the 787 now or ever, since it's simply easier for them to rely heavily on AA + other OW partners for feed at hubs, so why would they become the launch customer of a potential 797?

IMO, the launch customer for the MoM jet you're talking about would probably be UA. They (and DL to a lesser extent) are the ones in greatest need of that plane.

Behind doors, you'd be amazed at how close AS came to buying a few terrible teen 787's. Boeing talked them out of it & gave them a deal on a batch of 7M9s That was of course before AA &
AS partnered. But the idea has seriously been considered.

I think AA isn't worried about AS going International, that would likely be offered as an AA coded flight. I see the 787 being great in the summer SEA-ANC. In the winter SEA-HNL/OGG.

Interesting.

I guess it would make sense ex-SEA but from their other hubs, they would simply be drowned out due to the competition. The few exceptions may be SFO/LAX/SEA transcons where a widebody may be applicable.

sfojvjets wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Wow. That's definitely specific.

I thought the entire reason that AS entered OW had to do with them not wanting to touch widebodies. AS doesn't want the 787 now or ever, since it's simply easier for them to rely heavily on AA + other OW partners for feed at hubs, so why would they become the launch customer of a potential 797?

IMO, the launch customer for the MoM jet you're talking about would probably be UA. They (and DL to a lesser extent) are the ones in greatest need of that plane.

Behind doors, you'd be amazed at how close AS came to buying a few terrible teen 787's. Boeing talked them out of it & gave them a deal on a batch of 7M9s That was of course before AA &
AS partnered. But the idea has seriously been considered.

I think AA isn't worried about AS going International, that would likely be offered as an AA coded flight. I see the 787 being great in the summer SEA-ANC. In the winter SEA-HNL/OGG.

Interesting.

I guess it would make sense ex-SEA but from their other hubs, they would simply be drowned out due to the competition. The few exceptions may be SFO/LAX/SEA transcons where a widebody may be applicable.

I think people miss the part where they fly like 6 flights between sea and anc between 2 and 5am. When it could be replaced by 2 that perfectly hit the connecting banks in Seattle

Cody - Yellowstone Regional Airport (COD) hopes to bring in AS to counter the loss of DL service next summer:-

https://www.codyenterprise.com/news/loc ... 7e0e9.html

Quoting from the above article:-

Through their efforts to find flights to replace the 1-2 daily summer Delta flights, Buck and Hall have built a relationship with Alaska Airlines, which Hall said plans to set up a “mini-hub” in Boise, Idaho, in the near future, and has expressed strong interest in partnering with YRA.

“We’ll probably see at least summer service with Alaska,” Hall said. “It’s great if you’re flying west.”

onwFan wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

They should make SFO a serious hub considering how many gates they have there.

They are contrary to the San Francisco forum on here. Lounge and all. But that might change since deltas terminal I think is going to be torn down, no one’s sure.

Wait, where was it mentioned that DL’s terminal is going to be torn down? According to the SFO website, the C gates are only getting refreshed. After all, DL has its SkyClub there, and I don’t think DL is moving anywhere, unless someone has info to the contrary.

I guess the source if the confusion is the C gates being temporarily referred to as part of Terminal 2 - but that is only because currently there is no connection between the C gates and the T1 B gates due to the construction work going on for a new North check in lobby. My understanding is that once that lobby construction is finished, DL will get fresh check in counter space (along with HA, F9 and SY which were also slated to move into T1 from the Intl terminal).

If AS is indeed moving into T1 as rumored, I wouldn’t be surprised to see WN, F9 and SY in the T2 D gates instead. This would make the most sense from an operational point of view to enable seamless connections between oneworld/SkyTeam partners in B/C gates and A gates.

theres currently conflicting reports what will happen to the delta terminal, but the departure hall and t1 connector are no longer, soooo yeah

onwFan wrote:

Cody - Yellowstone Regional Airport (COD) hopes to bring in AS to counter the loss of DL service next summer

I can honestly say I didn't have Cody on my Alaska Airlines new city bingo card.

I would love to see AS expand their footprint into Wyoming, but I am very skeptical. United holds the EAS award into COD until May, 2022 and serves it from Denver with a $841,000/yr incentive to do so. Alaska's smallest option is to bring 76 seats into the market which saw around 41,000 passengers per year in 2019. Looking at their 2019 "season" (June-Sept or 122 days), 22,598 passengers departed COD, or about 185 passengers per day with an average of 6 flights per day.

I wouldn't say it is unreasonable, but those aren't the best of numbers to dive into, especially unsubsidized. Also, I question the viability of BOI being the origin of this market. Perhaps this could make a good use of a Q400 from BOI 1x with a RON in COD -- though how many would prefer to have a single connection in DEN with higher frequency than a possible double connection 1-2 times per day thru BOI.

Never say never though.

Ryan

theAviationGeek wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Cody - Yellowstone Regional Airport (COD) hopes to bring in AS to counter the loss of DL service next summer

I can honestly say I didn't have Cody on my Alaska Airlines new city bingo card.

I would love to see AS expand their footprint into Wyoming, but I am very skeptical. United holds the EAS award into COD until May, 2022 and serves it from Denver with a $841,000/yr incentive to do so. Alaska's smallest option is to bring 76 seats into the market which saw around 41,000 passengers per year in 2019. Looking at their 2019 "season" (June-Sept or 122 days), 22,598 passengers departed COD, or about 185 passengers per day with an average of 6 flights per day.

I wouldn't say it is unreasonable, but those aren't the best of numbers to dive into, especially unsubsidized. Also, I question the viability of BOI being the origin of this market. Perhaps this could make a good use of a Q400 from BOI 1x with a RON in COD -- though how many would prefer to have a single connection in DEN with higher frequency than a possible double connection 1-2 times per day thru BOI.

Never say never though.

Ryan

In this industry, you are complete correct...you never know. But JAC isn't too far away from Cody. Also, doesn't JAC have a lot more to offer besides Yellowstone National Park. I don't think AS will fly to Cody unless there are some significant subs. Could an E-175 fly to Cody?

I would imagine if AS were to fly to another destination in WY, it would Casper.

Cardude2 wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

They are contrary to the San Francisco forum on here. Lounge and all. But that might change since deltas terminal I think is going to be torn down, no one’s sure.

Wait, where was it mentioned that DL’s terminal is going to be torn down? According to the SFO website, the C gates are only getting refreshed. After all, DL has its SkyClub there, and I don’t think DL is moving anywhere, unless someone has info to the contrary.

I guess the source if the confusion is the C gates being temporarily referred to as part of Terminal 2 - but that is only because currently there is no connection between the C gates and the T1 B gates due to the construction work going on for a new North check in lobby. My understanding is that once that lobby construction is finished, DL will get fresh check in counter space (along with HA, F9 and SY which were also slated to move into T1 from the Intl terminal).

If AS is indeed moving into T1 as rumored, I wouldn’t be surprised to see WN, F9 and SY in the T2 D gates instead. This would make the most sense from an operational point of view to enable seamless connections between oneworld/SkyTeam partners in B/C gates and A gates.

theres currently conflicting reports what will happen to the delta terminal, but the departure hall and t1 connector are no longer, soooo yeah

It is not that the departure hall and T1 are ‘no longer’ there. The new check-in area they constructing blocks access to it. And the hall is directly next to the C gates boarding area. Not sure why SFO will build a new departure hall only to take down the 10 gates. It is not as if SFO has a surplus of gates…

theAviationGeek wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Cody - Yellowstone Regional Airport (COD) hopes to bring in AS to counter the loss of DL service next summer

I can honestly say I didn't have Cody on my Alaska Airlines new city bingo card.

I would love to see AS expand their footprint into Wyoming, but I am very skeptical. United holds the EAS award into COD until May, 2022 and serves it from Denver with a $841,000/yr incentive to do so. Alaska's smallest option is to bring 76 seats into the market which saw around 41,000 passengers per year in 2019. Looking at their 2019 "season" (June-Sept or 122 days), 22,598 passengers departed COD, or about 185 passengers per day with an average of 6 flights per day.

I wouldn't say it is unreasonable, but those aren't the best of numbers to dive into, especially unsubsidized. Also, I question the viability of BOI being the origin of this market. Perhaps this could make a good use of a Q400 from BOI 1x with a RON in COD -- though how many would prefer to have a single connection in DEN with higher frequency than a possible double connection 1-2 times per day thru BOI.

Never say never though.

Ryan

I would imagine if AS entered COD they'd be hoping to appeal to passengers using an airport like JAC or BZN to get to Yellowstone. There's certainly potential for a flight into COD during the summer months, although unlike JAC it isn't going to have ski demand to sustain the route in winter months.

It's almost certainly out of the question for AS, but I could actually see a flight to COD working quite well from April-June of this year while JAC is closed for runway construction. I don't see AS entering a brand new market on such a short timeline, but it wouldn't surprise me if UA increases frequencies on their flights and the airport sees more demand than usual during that timespan.

cnunn wrote:

theAviationGeek wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Cody - Yellowstone Regional Airport (COD) hopes to bring in AS to counter the loss of DL service next summer

I can honestly say I didn't have Cody on my Alaska Airlines new city bingo card.

I would love to see AS expand their footprint into Wyoming, but I am very skeptical. United holds the EAS award into COD until May, 2022 and serves it from Denver with a $841,000/yr incentive to do so. Alaska's smallest option is to bring 76 seats into the market which saw around 41,000 passengers per year in 2019. Looking at their 2019 "season" (June-Sept or 122 days), 22,598 passengers departed COD, or about 185 passengers per day with an average of 6 flights per day.

I wouldn't say it is unreasonable, but those aren't the best of numbers to dive into, especially unsubsidized. Also, I question the viability of BOI being the origin of this market. Perhaps this could make a good use of a Q400 from BOI 1x with a RON in COD -- though how many would prefer to have a single connection in DEN with higher frequency than a possible double connection 1-2 times per day thru BOI.

Never say never though.

Ryan

I would imagine if AS entered COD they'd be hoping to appeal to passengers using an airport like JAC or BZN to get to Yellowstone. There's certainly potential for a flight into COD during the summer months, although unlike JAC it isn't going to have ski demand to sustain the route in winter months.

It's almost certainly out of the question for AS, but I could actually see a flight to COD working quite well from April-June of this year while JAC is closed for runway construction. I don't see AS entering a brand new market on such a short timeline, but it wouldn't surprise me if UA increases frequencies on their flights and the airport sees more demand than usual during that timespan.

Don't forget IDA. AS has been focusing some attention to IDA with nonstop service to SEA and new, upcoming service to BOI coming this year. I would imagine more flights will go to IDA during JAC closure.

I'm surprised why AS would consider flying to COD from BOI instead of SEA, even though I understand the better geographic position of BOI for connections.

I feel like JAC would work to BOI potentially up thread I know obviously AS is Turning into a mini hub or focus city do you think they could pick up potential passengers in those small cities to connect them east ? I hope to see more destinations added there this year but frequency also should be increased on some routes I think.

Wneast wrote:

I feel like JAC would work to BOI potentially up thread I know obviously AS is Turning into a mini hub or focus city do you think they could pick up potential passengers in those small cities to connect them east ? I hope to see more destinations added there this year but frequency also should be increased on some routes I think.

It kind of does. The JAC-SEA flight frequently makes a tech stop at BOI for refueling due to performance issues at JAC in the summer. An AA A319 can make it to CLT, but an E175 can’t make it to SEA.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Wneast wrote:

I feel like JAC would work to BOI potentially up thread I know obviously AS is Turning into a mini hub or focus city do you think they could pick up potential passengers in those small cities to connect them east ? I hope to see more destinations added there this year but frequency also should be increased on some routes I think.

It kind of does. The JAC-SEA flight frequently makes a tech stop at BOI for refueling due to performance issues at JAC in the summer. An AA A319 can make it to CLT, but an E175 can’t make it to SEA.

Does the same issue exist with DL's E-175s to SEA?

Fleet update, N932AK aka Orca One was delivered today and has arrived in ANC for EIS prep.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N932AK

wedgetail737 wrote:

I'm hoping for more connecting-the-dots this year, especially out of BOI and GEG. But I'm also hoping for a couple of new links to smaller CA communities like ACV and BFL.

I feel like once daily BFL-SEA could do well, but I also wonder what additional "overhead" would be required on the ground in BFL. OO currently serves BFL, and they do bring in E175s for UA on occasion, so if they could use the same crews and just add a station manager and ticket counter, it might be in the cards, especially with incentives from the city.

wedgetail737 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Wneast wrote:

I feel like JAC would work to BOI potentially up thread I know obviously AS is Turning into a mini hub or focus city do you think they could pick up potential passengers in those small cities to connect them east ? I hope to see more destinations added there this year but frequency also should be increased on some routes I think.

It kind of does. The JAC-SEA flight frequently makes a tech stop at BOI for refueling due to performance issues at JAC in the summer. An AA A319 can make it to CLT, but an E175 can’t make it to SEA.

Does the same issue exist with DL's E-175s to SEA?

Not sure. I was a passenger on JAC-SEA in September. We did a gas-and-go at BOI. The station manager told me that’s a regular occurrence instead of off-loading passengers.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Wneast wrote:

I feel like JAC would work to BOI potentially up thread I know obviously AS is Turning into a mini hub or focus city do you think they could pick up potential passengers in those small cities to connect them east ? I hope to see more destinations added there this year but frequency also should be increased on some routes I think.

It kind of does. The JAC-SEA flight frequently makes a tech stop at BOI for refueling due to performance issues at JAC in the summer. An AA A319 can make it to CLT, but an E175 can’t make it to SEA.

I’m unfamiliar with JAC, what leads to the performance issues, specifically on the E175?

cnunn wrote:

theAviationGeek wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Cody - Yellowstone Regional Airport (COD) hopes to bring in AS to counter the loss of DL service next summer

I can honestly say I didn't have Cody on my Alaska Airlines new city bingo card.

I would love to see AS expand their footprint into Wyoming, but I am very skeptical. United holds the EAS award into COD until May, 2022 and serves it from Denver with a $841,000/yr incentive to do so. Alaska's smallest option is to bring 76 seats into the market which saw around 41,000 passengers per year in 2019. Looking at their 2019 "season" (June-Sept or 122 days), 22,598 passengers departed COD, or about 185 passengers per day with an average of 6 flights per day.

I wouldn't say it is unreasonable, but those aren't the best of numbers to dive into, especially unsubsidized. Also, I question the viability of BOI being the origin of this market. Perhaps this could make a good use of a Q400 from BOI 1x with a RON in COD -- though how many would prefer to have a single connection in DEN with higher frequency than a possible double connection 1-2 times per day thru BOI.

Never say never though.

Ryan

I would imagine if AS entered COD they'd be hoping to appeal to passengers using an airport like JAC or BZN to get to Yellowstone. There's certainly potential for a flight into COD during the summer months, although unlike JAC it isn't going to have ski demand to sustain the route in winter months.

It's almost certainly out of the question for AS, but I could actually see a flight to COD working quite well from April-June of this year while JAC is closed for runway construction. I don't see AS entering a brand new market on such a short timeline, but it wouldn't surprise me if UA increases frequencies on their flights and the airport sees more demand than usual during that timespan.

Unless they do as part of the forthcoming EAS contract renewal. OO could fly the route and split the frequencies between DEN and most likely SEA.

It's recently been done at West Yellowstone, Butte, or Moab.

flyoregon wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Wneast wrote:

I feel like JAC would work to BOI potentially up thread I know obviously AS is Turning into a mini hub or focus city do you think they could pick up potential passengers in those small cities to connect them east ? I hope to see more destinations added there this year but frequency also should be increased on some routes I think.

It kind of does. The JAC-SEA flight frequently makes a tech stop at BOI for refueling due to performance issues at JAC in the summer. An AA A319 can make it to CLT, but an E175 can’t make it to SEA.

I’m unfamiliar with JAC, what leads to the performance issues, specifically on the E175?

Higher altitude. Not a real long runway. Terrain issues all around it. If I recall, the E175 has an issue with engine out performance.

BoeingGuy wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

It kind of does. The JAC-SEA flight frequently makes a tech stop at BOI for refueling due to performance issues at JAC in the summer. An AA A319 can make it to CLT, but an E175 can’t make it to SEA.

I’m unfamiliar with JAC, what leads to the performance issues, specifically on the E175?

Higher altitude. Not a real long runway. Terrain issues all around it. If I recall, the E175 has an issue with engine out performance.

Thanks for that

Alaska to trim its January flying 10% due to Covid related staffing challenges.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIciE2xXwAk ... name=large