NW747 wrote:

ANA787 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

It looks like Delta has removed PDX-ICN and PDX-HND from the schedule for the rest of 2022 through at least March 2023.

Not surprised. Asia traffic is still quite depressed from a passenger perspective. Business travel also still has not returned. And DL has little feed at PDX and at HND. However cargo still continues to be big from oregon. I wonder if this pushout of PDX-HND has caught the eye of NH or JL starting PDX-NRT. Cargo is big between Japan and oregon due to the semiconductor industry. Surely JL could make a flight work with a 787 even now with PDX being a oneworld hub. Eventually I’m sure we’ll see PDX-HND dropped by DL, JL to take over PDX-Japan, and PDX-ICN to continue via the codeshare with Korean air.

This has me wondering what actual oneworld connections would benefit that aren’t already available with JL through SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, and even YVR. I’d be pleasantly surprised if JL starts PDX-HND anytime soon. On the other hand, I do see PDX-ICN starting at some point on DL metal but not KE. The other challenge with international connections at PDX is the immigration facility. I’ve arrived multiple times on DL NRT and AMS flights and waited in the plane for some time while another flight is boarding. I’ve also been impacted landslide waiting to board. The common domestic/international hallway is a definite pain point. The actual customs area is cramped as well and is not a pleasant experience (that includes walking out to a bus in the rain with bags in tow).

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

TransWorldOne wrote:

NW747 wrote:

ANA787 wrote:

Not surprised. Asia traffic is still quite depressed from a passenger perspective. Business travel also still has not returned. And DL has little feed at PDX and at HND. However cargo still continues to be big from oregon. I wonder if this pushout of PDX-HND has caught the eye of NH or JL starting PDX-NRT. Cargo is big between Japan and oregon due to the semiconductor industry. Surely JL could make a flight work with a 787 even now with PDX being a oneworld hub. Eventually I’m sure we’ll see PDX-HND dropped by DL, JL to take over PDX-Japan, and PDX-ICN to continue via the codeshare with Korean air.

This has me wondering what actual oneworld connections would benefit that aren’t already available with JL through SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, and even YVR. I’d be pleasantly surprised if JL starts PDX-HND anytime soon. On the other hand, I do see PDX-ICN starting at some point on DL metal but not KE. The other challenge with international connections at PDX is the immigration facility. I’ve arrived multiple times on DL NRT and AMS flights and waited in the plane for some time while another flight is boarding. I’ve also been impacted landslide waiting to board. The common domestic/international hallway is a definite pain point. The actual customs area is cramped as well and is not a pleasant experience (that includes walking out to a bus in the rain with bags in tow).

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

I’ve been wondering the same thing. The current set up is really clumsy. When an international flight arrives, the entire end of the concourse pretty much shuts down to all other arriving/departing flights.

TransWorldOne wrote:

NW747 wrote:

ANA787 wrote:

Not surprised. Asia traffic is still quite depressed from a passenger perspective. Business travel also still has not returned. And DL has little feed at PDX and at HND. However cargo still continues to be big from oregon. I wonder if this pushout of PDX-HND has caught the eye of NH or JL starting PDX-NRT. Cargo is big between Japan and oregon due to the semiconductor industry. Surely JL could make a flight work with a 787 even now with PDX being a oneworld hub. Eventually I’m sure we’ll see PDX-HND dropped by DL, JL to take over PDX-Japan, and PDX-ICN to continue via the codeshare with Korean air.

This has me wondering what actual oneworld connections would benefit that aren’t already available with JL through SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, and even YVR. I’d be pleasantly surprised if JL starts PDX-HND anytime soon. On the other hand, I do see PDX-ICN starting at some point on DL metal but not KE. The other challenge with international connections at PDX is the immigration facility. I’ve arrived multiple times on DL NRT and AMS flights and waited in the plane for some time while another flight is boarding. I’ve also been impacted landslide waiting to board. The common domestic/international hallway is a definite pain point. The actual customs area is cramped as well and is not a pleasant experience (that includes walking out to a bus in the rain with bags in tow).

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

I think if there were plans to improve international arrivals there would be something about it on PDXnext. So far it seems to be all about the new roof.

Part of me will be surprised if DL ever brings back PDX-Tokyo. With no feed on either end it’s hard to see it hanging around in this new environment. A JL 787 seems to make the most sense for me. OW hub to OW “hub”, feed on both ends plus a decent O&D/cargo market.

NW747 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

NW747 wrote:

This has me wondering what actual oneworld connections would benefit that aren’t already available with JL through SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, and even YVR. I’d be pleasantly surprised if JL starts PDX-HND anytime soon. On the other hand, I do see PDX-ICN starting at some point on DL metal but not KE. The other challenge with international connections at PDX is the immigration facility. I’ve arrived multiple times on DL NRT and AMS flights and waited in the plane for some time while another flight is boarding. I’ve also been impacted landslide waiting to board. The common domestic/international hallway is a definite pain point. The actual customs area is cramped as well and is not a pleasant experience (that includes walking out to a bus in the rain with bags in tow).

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

I’ve been wondering the same thing. The current set up is really clumsy. When an international flight arrives, the entire end of the concourse pretty much shuts down to all other arriving/departing flights.

I guess I’m confused. How does the end of D shut down to other flights when an international arrives? I’ve seen domestic flights co-mingle on D with international. The international arrivals go downstairs and aren’t crossed with the domestic pax until they reclear security at that int’l arrivals checkpoint by D11.

Chugach wrote:

NW747 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

I’ve been wondering the same thing. The current set up is really clumsy. When an international flight arrives, the entire end of the concourse pretty much shuts down to all other arriving/departing flights.

I guess I’m confused. How does the end of D shut down to other flights when an international arrives? I’ve seen domestic flights co-mingle on D with international. The international arrivals go downstairs and aren’t crossed with the domestic pax until they reclear security at that int’l arrivals checkpoint by D11.

All the gates at the end of D use the same hallway that becomes the sterile corridor for arriving international flights. Passengers use the hallway to move from the arriving international aircraft to access the stairs to the lower level. I believe this includes gates 10-15. When an international flight arrives those gates are all closed to departing flights to allow the international passengers to pass through.

Whereas many airports are able to funnel arriving international passengers by sealing off a single gate, the design at PDX does not permit this.

NW747 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

NW747 wrote:

I’ve been wondering the same thing. The current set up is really clumsy. When an international flight arrives, the entire end of the concourse pretty much shuts down to all other arriving/departing flights.

I guess I’m confused. How does the end of D shut down to other flights when an international arrives? I’ve seen domestic flights co-mingle on D with international. The international arrivals go downstairs and aren’t crossed with the domestic pax until they reclear security at that int’l arrivals checkpoint by D11.

All the gates at the end of D use the same hallway that becomes the sterile corridor for arriving international flights. Passengers use the hallway to move from the arriving international aircraft to access the stairs to the lower level. I believe this includes gates 10-15. When an international flight arrives those gates are all closed to departing flights to allow the international passengers to pass through.

Whereas many airports are able to funnel arriving international passengers by sealing off a single gate, the design at PDX does not permit this.

Interesting. Granted I’ve only done customs at PDX once (AS coming from PVR), but my recollection is we arrived at D10 and were immediately funneled downstairs…we were blocked off from “exploring” the hallway. I can see what you are saying with the design though.

TransWorldOne wrote:

NW747 wrote:

ANA787 wrote:

Not surprised. Asia traffic is still quite depressed from a passenger perspective. Business travel also still has not returned. And DL has little feed at PDX and at HND. However cargo still continues to be big from oregon. I wonder if this pushout of PDX-HND has caught the eye of NH or JL starting PDX-NRT. Cargo is big between Japan and oregon due to the semiconductor industry. Surely JL could make a flight work with a 787 even now with PDX being a oneworld hub. Eventually I’m sure we’ll see PDX-HND dropped by DL, JL to take over PDX-Japan, and PDX-ICN to continue via the codeshare with Korean air.

This has me wondering what actual oneworld connections would benefit that aren’t already available with JL through SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, and even YVR. I’d be pleasantly surprised if JL starts PDX-HND anytime soon. On the other hand, I do see PDX-ICN starting at some point on DL metal but not KE. The other challenge with international connections at PDX is the immigration facility. I’ve arrived multiple times on DL NRT and AMS flights and waited in the plane for some time while another flight is boarding. I’ve also been impacted landslide waiting to board. The common domestic/international hallway is a definite pain point. The actual customs area is cramped as well and is not a pleasant experience (that includes walking out to a bus in the rain with bags in tow).

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

IIRC, in the master plan of 2000 post the whole “DePortland” ordeal with DL but pre fuel crises and 9/11, there was a large portion of the plan dedicated to terminal expansion/international area improvements. I presume this plan was a bit of a response to the whole reason of Delta leaving as the airport was trying to draw in another major carrier to setup shop here with the assumption that facilities would receive huge improvements if an airline was willing to invest in the airport. There were quite a few ideas proposed which if you look at the plan (which i’ll post the link to below) are quite interesting to think were being considered and if not for 9/11 I think very well could have been enacted. I personally think that if the airports goal is to have substantial growth, investing in a new main terminal/landslide area, is a great way to start because even if the growth is not to be what is expected you won’t end up with a bunch of empty gate space and a subpar check in area.

2000 Master Plan: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/ ... sequence=1

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

NW747 wrote:

This has me wondering what actual oneworld connections would benefit that aren’t already available with JL through SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, and even YVR. I’d be pleasantly surprised if JL starts PDX-HND anytime soon. On the other hand, I do see PDX-ICN starting at some point on DL metal but not KE. The other challenge with international connections at PDX is the immigration facility. I’ve arrived multiple times on DL NRT and AMS flights and waited in the plane for some time while another flight is boarding. I’ve also been impacted landslide waiting to board. The common domestic/international hallway is a definite pain point. The actual customs area is cramped as well and is not a pleasant experience (that includes walking out to a bus in the rain with bags in tow).

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

IIRC, in the master plan of 2000 post the whole “DePortland” ordeal with DL but pre fuel crises and 9/11, there was a large portion of the plan dedicated to terminal expansion/international area improvements. I presume this plan was a bit of a response to the whole reason of Delta leaving as the airport was trying to draw in another major carrier to setup shop here with the assumption that facilities would receive huge improvements if an airline was willing to invest in the airport. There were quite a few ideas proposed which if you look at the plan (which i’ll post the link to below) are quite interesting to think were being considered and if not for 9/11 I think very well could have been enacted. I personally think that if the airports goal is to have substantial growth, investing in a new main terminal/landslide area, is a great way to start because even if the growth is not to be what is expected you won’t end up with a bunch of empty gate space and a subpar check in area.

2000 Master Plan: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/ ... sequence=1

It makes me wonder if this master plan was continually closely referenced in the development of current master plans in reference to CC-E extension, CC-B rebuild, and T-CORE, because for all intents and purposes, the developments in green on the map (20 mil pax) on page 32 of the physical document, has all but been realized. The proposed satellite concourse is an interesting concept as well. I think further developments would require significant redevelopment of the existing airfield layout which seems unlikely.

AS737MAX wrote:

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

IIRC, in the master plan of 2000 post the whole “DePortland” ordeal with DL but pre fuel crises and 9/11, there was a large portion of the plan dedicated to terminal expansion/international area improvements. I presume this plan was a bit of a response to the whole reason of Delta leaving as the airport was trying to draw in another major carrier to setup shop here with the assumption that facilities would receive huge improvements if an airline was willing to invest in the airport. There were quite a few ideas proposed which if you look at the plan (which i’ll post the link to below) are quite interesting to think were being considered and if not for 9/11 I think very well could have been enacted. I personally think that if the airports goal is to have substantial growth, investing in a new main terminal/landslide area, is a great way to start because even if the growth is not to be what is expected you won’t end up with a bunch of empty gate space and a subpar check in area.

2000 Master Plan: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/ ... sequence=1

It makes me wonder if this master plan was continually closely referenced in the development of current master plans in reference to CC-E extension, CC-B rebuild, and T-CORE, because for all intents and purposes, the developments in green on the map (20 mil pax) on page 32 of the physical document, has all but been realized. The proposed satellite concourse is an interesting concept as well. I think further developments would require significant redevelopment of the existing airfield layout which seems unlikely.

There is actually a (slightly) more refreshed 2008 master plan which outlines a plan for what is essentially a super addition of CC-E/B with what appears to be a some sort of additional landslide area. Although it is now almost 15 years old, it was created during much more similar to current times with high fuel prices alongside an unstable economy. Like with a proposed satellite terminal, in would require major airfield readjustments, in this case including but not limited to the movement of FBOs and Cargo areas which in some way makes a satellite terminal actually more feasible as expanding east would severely impact General Aviation and Cargo. Although having a plan and forecasting is always key, but the reality is that unless we are fortunate enough to experience in the next 5-10 years prosperous aviation growth, major terminal expansion is quite unlikely given that a) Portlands economy/city reputation has a quite unknown future, b) from what i’ve heard landing and other misc. fees are through the roof for the time being as a result of airlines largely footing the current major project.

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

AS737MAX wrote:

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

IIRC, in the master plan of 2000 post the whole “DePortland” ordeal with DL but pre fuel crises and 9/11, there was a large portion of the plan dedicated to terminal expansion/international area improvements. I presume this plan was a bit of a response to the whole reason of Delta leaving as the airport was trying to draw in another major carrier to setup shop here with the assumption that facilities would receive huge improvements if an airline was willing to invest in the airport. There were quite a few ideas proposed which if you look at the plan (which i’ll post the link to below) are quite interesting to think were being considered and if not for 9/11 I think very well could have been enacted. I personally think that if the airports goal is to have substantial growth, investing in a new main terminal/landslide area, is a great way to start because even if the growth is not to be what is expected you won’t end up with a bunch of empty gate space and a subpar check in area.

2000 Master Plan: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/ ... sequence=1

It makes me wonder if this master plan was continually closely referenced in the development of current master plans in reference to CC-E extension, CC-B rebuild, and T-CORE, because for all intents and purposes, the developments in green on the map (20 mil pax) on page 32 of the physical document, has all but been realized. The proposed satellite concourse is an interesting concept as well. I think further developments would require significant redevelopment of the existing airfield layout which seems unlikely.

There is actually a (slightly) more refreshed 2008 master plan which outlines a plan for what is essentially a super addition of CC-E/B with what appears to be a some sort of additional landslide area. Although it is now almost 15 years old, it was created during much more similar to current times with high fuel prices alongside an unstable economy. Like with a proposed satellite terminal, in would require major airfield readjustments, in this case including but not limited to the movement of FBOs and Cargo areas which in some way makes a satellite terminal actually more feasible as expanding east would severely impact General Aviation and Cargo. Although having a plan and forecasting is always key, but the reality is that unless we are fortunate enough to experience in the next 5-10 years prosperous aviation growth, major terminal expansion is quite unlikely given that a) Portlands economy/city reputation has a quite unknown future, b) from what i’ve heard landing and other misc. fees are through the roof for the time being as a result of airlines largely footing the current major project.

This is all fascinating stuff. Thank you for sharing.

This is purely speculation in my part, but with the the current situation (not just the immigration facility limitations, but also the factors cited in the previous post) I’d be really surprised if AS/oneworld drops more international connectivity / service into PDX within the next few years. I’m hopeful for the start of DL PDX - ICN at some point in 2023, but not sure we’ll see much else in the international front. Perhaps extended Volaris service?

I flew Breeze yesterday and did one of their “Breeze Thru” flights to see what it’s like. I could see that working on a route such as PVU-SFO-SLE.

Chugach wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

NW747 wrote:

This has me wondering what actual oneworld connections would benefit that aren’t already available with JL through SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, and even YVR. I’d be pleasantly surprised if JL starts PDX-HND anytime soon. On the other hand, I do see PDX-ICN starting at some point on DL metal but not KE. The other challenge with international connections at PDX is the immigration facility. I’ve arrived multiple times on DL NRT and AMS flights and waited in the plane for some time while another flight is boarding. I’ve also been impacted landslide waiting to board. The common domestic/international hallway is a definite pain point. The actual customs area is cramped as well and is not a pleasant experience (that includes walking out to a bus in the rain with bags in tow).

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

I think if there were plans to improve international arrivals there would be something about it on PDXnext. So far it seems to be all about the new roof.

Part of me will be surprised if DL ever brings back PDX-Tokyo. With no feed on either end it’s hard to see it hanging around in this new environment. A JL 787 seems to make the most sense for me. OW hub to OW “hub”, feed on both ends plus a decent O&D/cargo market.

First, the DL PDX-NRT & now PDX-HND, has operated with no feed on each end & it has stayed in place for decades, without the feed you mentioned. Secondly, PDX is by no means a O/W hub, a focus city at best. The connections AS could offer are secondary CA cities that don't have their own TYO n/s flights, SMF stands out, but many would drive to SFO & take a myriad of carriers & pay way less.

But of course Covid, which hit Asian economies harder, has left travel to most countries hindered to fully stopped. The need for this appointed slot at HND, is PDX specific, I assume DL will be given a certain timeline to either start up service again, or potentially lose it to a carrier that wants it. The A-332 or 333 the best planes DL has, for this route

But the big cities like SAN, LAX, LAS, SFO & SEA all have their own non-stops. AS has very few places outside of the west that could make connections via PDX & as one who uses PDX enough, AS has cut services way back, lots of our routes are on the E-175's, some are plain gone.

I like the E-175's & so do most travelers I've asked, but JL to SEA & then AS on almost always a mainline jet would be preferred by most travelers, plus add in several cities that can't be reached at all via PDX, like RDM for example.

If JL comes here, I think it's Zipair (ZP) instead & the cargo in this market alone, could warrant a 788 mostly full with cargo, plus the 75-85% passenger loads they could get, may be the entry for JL at PDX.

RWA380 wrote:

First, the DL PDX-NRT & now PDX-HND, has operated with no feed on each end & it has stayed in place for decades, without the feed you mentioned. Secondly, PDX is by no means a O/W hub, a focus city at best. The connections AS could offer are secondary CA cities that don't have their own TYO n/s flights, SMF stands out, but many would drive to SFO & take a myriad of carriers & pay way less.

If JL PDX-NRT nonstop service is added, there would also be connecting opportunities onto JL PDX-NRT from BOI/LAS/PHX/GEG in addition to secondary California cities.

JL would also be able to offer connections through NRT to some other Japanese destinations such as FUK, KOJ, KCZ, KMJ, MYJ, KMI, NGS, NGO, OKA, OIT, KIX, CTS, SHI, and TAK.

JL also codeshares with some other Asian airlines such as PG, CX, CI, MU, CZ, GA, KE, MH, OM, BI, FM, UL, UK, and MF.

JL would likely have some beyond-NRT connecting traffic to some other Asian destinations from PDX-NRT nonstop flights if it adds PDX-NRT nonstop service with the partnerships that JL has with some other Asian airlines.

RWA380 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

I also agree that ICN will be flown on Delta metal when it (hopefully) eventually launches. Delta has a small flight attendant base at PDX to support these flights. I don't see what the advantage of having Korean Air operate the flight would be.
I also agree with your point about the sad international arrivals facility at PDX. The bus trip is definitely annoying. I wonder if there are any plans to remedy this with the new terminal?

I think if there were plans to improve international arrivals there would be something about it on PDXnext. So far it seems to be all about the new roof.

Part of me will be surprised if DL ever brings back PDX-Tokyo. With no feed on either end it’s hard to see it hanging around in this new environment. A JL 787 seems to make the most sense for me. OW hub to OW “hub”, feed on both ends plus a decent O&D/cargo market.

First, the DL PDX-NRT & now PDX-HND, has operated with no feed on each end & it has stayed in place for decades, without the feed you mentioned. Secondly, PDX is by no means a O/W hub, a focus city at best. The connections AS could offer are secondary CA cities that don't have their own TYO n/s flights, SMF stands out, but many would drive to SFO & take a myriad of carriers & pay way less.

But of course Covid, which hit Asian economies harder, has left travel to most countries hindered to fully stopped. The need for this appointed slot at HND, is PDX specific, I assume DL will be given a certain timeline to either start up service again, or potentially lose it to a carrier that wants it. The A-332 or 333 the best planes DL has, for this route

But the big cities like SAN, LAX, LAS, SFO & SEA all have their own non-stops. AS has very few places outside of the west that could make connections via PDX & as one who uses PDX enough, AS has cut services way back, lots of our routes are on the E-175's, some are plain gone.

I like the E-175's & so do most travelers I've asked, but JL to SEA & then AS on almost always a mainline jet would be preferred by most travelers, plus add in several cities that can't be reached at all via PDX, like RDM for example.

If JL comes here, I think it's Zipair (ZP) instead & the cargo in this market alone, could warrant a 788 mostly full with cargo, plus the 75-85% passenger loads they could get, may be the entry for JL at PDX.

Hence the quotation marks around PDX as a OW “hub”. With regards to feed on the Tokyo end, NRT was considered a hub for DL and NW before that for many years. I intended for my my comment that JL might have a better chance of success with a major hub on one end and some better connectivity on the Portland end than what DL can offer. Since DL keeps kicking the can down the road on PDX-HND, I just want somebody to fly the route and be successful doing it.

It's still very hard to say what the fate of the PDX-Asia routes are. Although both ICN and HND are both continuously being pushed back into the schedule, I do think it's a good sign that DL still has both of them in the long-term schedule. JL won't add PDX unless DL erases PDX-TYO from their schedule altogether.

On the domestic front, obviously AS is in no position to announce any new markets from PDX anytime soon, but I certainly hope that next summer is seen as a steady recovery point for PDX. It doesn't seem like summer 2022 was the recovery that we were all hoping for. The fact that PDX has the worst rebound passenger traffic levels in the country is incredibly sad, and the finger can easily be pointed at AS for this. Sure, other airlines have their own staffing issues as well, but there's no excuse for Alaska's lousy operation as of late.

If staffing levels and demand are greatly improved by 2023, my prediction is that AS will:

Summer 2023:
- Resume BWI and PHL. Maybe even 2x daily for AUS/DEN/DFW/ORD, as is in their current placeholder schedule.

Winter 2023/2024:
- Finally start MSY.
- Announce MRY.
- Announce MIA, while increasing TPA and FLL to daily.

Summer 2024:
- Resume ATL, FAI, DTW, and STL (maybe OMA too?).
- Announce BNA and SAT.

Here are the Q1 2022 PDEW's of the top contiguous U.S. markets traveled to from PDX that don't currently have AS nonstop service out of PDX:
PDX-MIA/FLL - 183 (AS currently planning on resuming PDX-FLL nonstop service on a Saturday-only basis starting on 11/19/2022)
PDX-IAH/HOU - 157
PDX-ATL - 151
PDX-TUS - 123 (AS currently planning on resuming PDX-TUS nonstop service on 11/18/2022)
PDX-TPA - 106 (AS currently planning on resuming PDX-TPA nonstop service on a Saturday-only basis starting on 12/3/2022)
PDX-DTW - 79
PDX-BNA - 75
PDX-MSY - 69 (AS currently planning on resuming PDX-MSY nonstop service on 3/16/2023)
PDX-SAT - 68
PDX-CLT - 65
PDX-PHL - 55
PDX-STL - 51
PDX-RDU - 45
PDX-RSW - 41
PDX-IND - 40
PDX-CLE/CAK - 39

AC4500 wrote:

If staffing levels and demand are greatly improved by 2023, my prediction is that AS will:

Summer 2023:
- Resume BWI and PHL. Maybe even 2x daily for AUS/DEN/DFW/ORD, as is in their current placeholder schedule.

Winter 2023/2024:
- Finally start MSY.
- Announce MRY.
- Announce MIA, while increasing TPA and FLL to daily.

Summer 2024:
- Resume ATL, FAI, DTW, and STL (maybe OMA too?).
- Announce BNA and SAT.

The possibility of AS adding PDX-IAH nonstop service was previously discussed over in the Houston Aviation Thread, and that discussion can be found over at viewtopic.php?t=1456185#p22714939.

AS adding PDX-CLE/IND/RDU nonstop service are also possibilities with PDX-CLE/IND/RDU being three of the top remaining domestic routes not currently served nonstop out of PDX.

Chugach wrote:

NW747 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

I guess I’m confused. How does the end of D shut down to other flights when an international arrives? I’ve seen domestic flights co-mingle on D with international. The international arrivals go downstairs and aren’t crossed with the domestic pax until they reclear security at that int’l arrivals checkpoint by D11.

All the gates at the end of D use the same hallway that becomes the sterile corridor for arriving international flights. Passengers use the hallway to move from the arriving international aircraft to access the stairs to the lower level. I believe this includes gates 10-15. When an international flight arrives those gates are all closed to departing flights to allow the international passengers to pass through.

Whereas many airports are able to funnel arriving international passengers by sealing off a single gate, the design at PDX does not permit this.

Interesting. Granted I’ve only done customs at PDX once (AS coming from PVR), but my recollection is we arrived at D10 and were immediately funneled downstairs…we were blocked off from “exploring” the hallway. I can see what you are saying with the design though.

There are really only two options in the near terms for new international gates and an enlarged immigration/customs area.

One, there have always been plans for a 4 gate expansion to the end of CC-D. That expansion would give them more room downstairs to process passengers and also restructure how the gates function and funnel passengers. On the downside, you'd still have the shuttle bus back to the terminal.

The other option is to take advantage of the downstairs area of the terminal expansion. I haven't heard what all that extra space is going to be used for. I can't imagine you need all that space for baggage handling. If that space can be used for immigration and customs, then you move the international capable gates to the beginning of CC-C and CC-D. That would eliminate the need for a shuttle.

Delete

jplatts wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

First, the DL PDX-NRT & now PDX-HND, has operated with no feed on each end & it has stayed in place for decades, without the feed you mentioned. Secondly, PDX is by no means a O/W hub, a focus city at best. The connections AS could offer are secondary CA cities that don't have their own TYO n/s flights, SMF stands out, but many would drive to SFO & take a myriad of carriers & pay way less.

If JL PDX-NRT nonstop service is added, there would also be connecting opportunities onto JL PDX-NRT from BOI/LAS/PHX/GEG in addition to secondary California cities.

JL would also be able to offer connections through NRT to some other Japanese destinations such as FUK, KOJ, KCZ, KMJ, MYJ, KMI, NGS, NGO, OKA, OIT, KIX, CTS, SHI, and TAK.

JL also codeshares with some other Asian airlines such as PG, CX, CI, MU, CZ, GA, KE, MH, OM, BI, FM, UL, UK, and MF.

JL would likely have some beyond-NRT connecting traffic to some other Asian destinations from PDX-NRT nonstop flights if it adds PDX-NRT nonstop service with the partnerships that JL has with some other Asian airlines.

Agreed, which would put JL in a good position for more cargo & passengers on the TYO end, however Zipair would offer the same connections to JL, but offering a small premium cabin (using the term loosely) PDX is not a super premium market. However JL's 788's are not overly premium heavy & it would attract almost any O/W or AS frequent flyer.

If JL opened it from NRT, there are connections to their entire network, this route will not make it on O/D any longer, so connections are important. DL has only a handful of connections beyond PDX to ATL, SLC, LAX & SEA,

The slot for PDX that DL possesses is HND specific, JL can offer the same Japan connections from HND plus any other International destinations out of HND.

Chugach wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

I think if there were plans to improve international arrivals there would be something about it on PDXnext. So far it seems to be all about the new roof.

Part of me will be surprised if DL ever brings back PDX-Tokyo. With no feed on either end it’s hard to see it hanging around in this new environment. A JL 787 seems to make the most sense for me. OW hub to OW “hub”, feed on both ends plus a decent O&D/cargo market.

First, the DL PDX-NRT & now PDX-HND, has operated with no feed on each end & it has stayed in place for decades, without the feed you mentioned. Secondly, PDX is by no means a O/W hub, a focus city at best. The connections AS could offer are secondary CA cities that don't have their own TYO n/s flights, SMF stands out, but many would drive to SFO & take a myriad of carriers & pay way less.

But of course Covid, which hit Asian economies harder, has left travel to most countries hindered to fully stopped. The need for this appointed slot at HND, is PDX specific, I assume DL will be given a certain timeline to either start up service again, or potentially lose it to a carrier that wants it. The A-332 or 333 the best planes DL has, for this route

But the big cities like SAN, LAX, LAS, SFO & SEA all have their own non-stops. AS has very few places outside of the west that could make connections via PDX & as one who uses PDX enough, AS has cut services way back, lots of our routes are on the E-175's, some are plain gone.

I like the E-175's & so do most travelers I've asked, but JL to SEA & then AS on almost always a mainline jet would be preferred by most travelers, plus add in several cities that can't be reached at all via PDX, like RDM for example.

If JL comes here, I think it's Zipair (ZP) instead & the cargo in this market alone, could warrant a 788 mostly full with cargo, plus the 75-85% passenger loads they could get, may be the entry for JL at PDX.

Hence the quotation marks around PDX as a OW “hub”. With regards to feed on the Tokyo end, NRT was considered a hub for DL and NW before that for many years. I intended for my my comment that JL might have a better chance of success with a major hub on one end and some better connectivity on the Portland end than what DL can offer. Since DL keeps kicking the can down the road on PDX-HND, I just want somebody to fly the route and be successful doing it.

Until AS grows PDX to Pre-Covid levels adding back cut cities & adding more mainline flying, I agree that "hub" was not recognized, but honestly I am agreeing that someone needs to pick it up & whomever does, get's their foot in the door on that route.

RWA380 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

First, the DL PDX-NRT & now PDX-HND, has operated with no feed on each end & it has stayed in place for decades, without the feed you mentioned. Secondly, PDX is by no means a O/W hub, a focus city at best. The connections AS could offer are secondary CA cities that don't have their own TYO n/s flights, SMF stands out, but many would drive to SFO & take a myriad of carriers & pay way less.

If JL PDX-NRT nonstop service is added, there would also be connecting opportunities onto JL PDX-NRT from BOI/LAS/PHX/GEG in addition to secondary California cities.

JL would also be able to offer connections through NRT to some other Japanese destinations such as FUK, KOJ, KCZ, KMJ, MYJ, KMI, NGS, NGO, OKA, OIT, KIX, CTS, SHI, and TAK.

JL also codeshares with some other Asian airlines such as PG, CX, CI, MU, CZ, GA, KE, MH, OM, BI, FM, UL, UK, and MF.

JL would likely have some beyond-NRT connecting traffic to some other Asian destinations from PDX-NRT nonstop flights if it adds PDX-NRT nonstop service with the partnerships that JL has with some other Asian airlines.

Agreed, which would put JL in a good position for more cargo & passengers on the TYO end, however Zipair would offer the same connections to JL, but offering a small premium cabin (using the term loosely) PDX is not a super premium market. However JL's 788's are not overly premium heavy & it would attract almost any O/W or AS frequent flyer.

If JL opened it from NRT, there are connections to their entire network, this route will not make it on O/D any longer, so connections are important. DL has only a handful of connections beyond PDX to ATL, SLC, LAX & SEA,

The slot for PDX that DL possesses is HND specific, JL can offer the same Japan connections from HND plus any other International destinations out of HND.

Chugach wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

First, the DL PDX-NRT & now PDX-HND, has operated with no feed on each end & it has stayed in place for decades, without the feed you mentioned. Secondly, PDX is by no means a O/W hub, a focus city at best. The connections AS could offer are secondary CA cities that don't have their own TYO n/s flights, SMF stands out, but many would drive to SFO & take a myriad of carriers & pay way less.

But of course Covid, which hit Asian economies harder, has left travel to most countries hindered to fully stopped. The need for this appointed slot at HND, is PDX specific, I assume DL will be given a certain timeline to either start up service again, or potentially lose it to a carrier that wants it. The A-332 or 333 the best planes DL has, for this route

But the big cities like SAN, LAX, LAS, SFO & SEA all have their own non-stops. AS has very few places outside of the west that could make connections via PDX & as one who uses PDX enough, AS has cut services way back, lots of our routes are on the E-175's, some are plain gone.

I like the E-175's & so do most travelers I've asked, but JL to SEA & then AS on almost always a mainline jet would be preferred by most travelers, plus add in several cities that can't be reached at all via PDX, like RDM for example.

If JL comes here, I think it's Zipair (ZP) instead & the cargo in this market alone, could warrant a 788 mostly full with cargo, plus the 75-85% passenger loads they could get, may be the entry for JL at PDX.

Hence the quotation marks around PDX as a OW “hub”. With regards to feed on the Tokyo end, NRT was considered a hub for DL and NW before that for many years. I intended for my my comment that JL might have a better chance of success with a major hub on one end and some better connectivity on the Portland end than what DL can offer. Since DL keeps kicking the can down the road on PDX-HND, I just want somebody to fly the route and be successful doing it.

Until AS grows PDX to Pre-Covid levels adding back cut cities & adding more mainline flying, I agree that "hub" was not recognized, but honestly I am agreeing that someone needs to pick it up & whomever does, get's their foot in the door on that route.

I was reading another thread earlier and it was talking about how in reality the problem that is affecting all these Asia routes is not the individual routes or even cities but the main problem is that most Asian governments still are hesitant on allowing foreigners to travel without special guidance and that is severely affecting hubs across the board. I saw an article earlier that I believe was referencing Japan as only having 7000 people cross through borders in the last month. Even if demand picks up (which i think it’s there right now), it ultimately is going to take when governments decide to resume tourism that these routes open up as I am sure there is plenty of Passangers not to mention cargo that is looking for a ride over the pacific.

TransWorldOne wrote:

It looks like Delta has removed PDX-ICN and PDX-HND from the schedule for the rest of 2022 through at least March 2023.

Very sad to hear, but makes sense. I too was looking forward to seeing these flights get off the ground this fall. I myself will be going to S. Korea in about a month and will be flying through SEA, but wished it was on DL's nonstop flight from PDX. I have used the DL PDX-TYO flight a handful of times and had been pleased with the service and convenience. Would be a shame if DL left that route for others to grab just like it was a shame to see them give up on PDX-LHR to BA versus giving the route to Virgin Atlantic.

But with the push of the DL's PDX-HND flight, I assume Japan is not yet ready for individual tourists this fall.... (only with guided tours)

I’ve been noticing lately that Volaris has had two flights on certain days GDL-PDX. The regular flight number is Y4 939 and the second flight seems to always be Y4 5939.

When you look at the flight history it doesn’t appear either flight has been delayed significantly or on the ground for maintenance over a period of time. In checking Volaris website I’ve only been able to find a single flight.

Any insight on this?

flyoregon wrote:

I’ve been noticing lately that Volaris has had two flights on certain days GDL-PDX. The regular flight number is Y4 939 and the second flight seems to always be Y4 5939.

When you look at the flight history it doesn’t appear either flight has been delayed significantly or on the ground for maintenance over a period of time. In checking Volaris website I’ve only been able to find a single flight.

Any insight on this?

Extra sector based on demand.

TransWorldOne wrote:

It looks like Delta has removed PDX-ICN and PDX-HND from the schedule for the rest of 2022 through at least March 2023.

Meanwhile SEA-ICN will be going from 7x weekly to 10x weekly on DL metal starting in December. Hopefully this isn't a sign that DL would rather consolidate traffic on SEA-ICN instead of launching PDX-ICN.

hoons90 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

It looks like Delta has removed PDX-ICN and PDX-HND from the schedule for the rest of 2022 through at least March 2023.

Meanwhile SEA-ICN will be going from 7x weekly to 10x weekly on DL metal starting in December. Hopefully this isn't a sign that DL would rather consolidate traffic on SEA-ICN instead of launching PDX-ICN.

I sure hope not... was anyone able to see the loads on that the PDX-ICN flight before Delta pulled it off their schedule in late fall/early winter?

Also, looks like Delta is moving forward with LAX-HND and HNL-HND.

twincommander wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

I’ve been noticing lately that Volaris has had two flights on certain days GDL-PDX. The regular flight number is Y4 939 and the second flight seems to always be Y4 5939.

When you look at the flight history it doesn’t appear either flight has been delayed significantly or on the ground for maintenance over a period of time. In checking Volaris website I’ve only been able to find a single flight.

Any insight on this?

Extra sector based on demand.

That's what I assumed as well, but didn't see it as a bookable option on their website.

They seem to be doing well in Portland...wouldn't surprise me if they were to add MEX or MLM like they planned a couple years ago.

pnwpdx wrote:

hoons90 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

It looks like Delta has removed PDX-ICN and PDX-HND from the schedule for the rest of 2022 through at least March 2023.

Meanwhile SEA-ICN will be going from 7x weekly to 10x weekly on DL metal starting in December. Hopefully this isn't a sign that DL would rather consolidate traffic on SEA-ICN instead of launching PDX-ICN.

I sure hope not... was anyone able to see the loads on that the PDX-ICN flight before Delta pulled it off their schedule in late fall/early winter?

Also, looks like Delta is moving forward with LAX-HND and HNL-HND.

I don’t have the exact numbers but I was frequently checking as the days got closer and seemed to be selling quite poorly. Rarely saw more that 2 D1 sold which are the money makers and PS/C+/Y were also left mostly untouched.

flyoregon wrote:

twincommander wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

I’ve been noticing lately that Volaris has had two flights on certain days GDL-PDX. The regular flight number is Y4 939 and the second flight seems to always be Y4 5939.

When you look at the flight history it doesn’t appear either flight has been delayed significantly or on the ground for maintenance over a period of time. In checking Volaris website I’ve only been able to find a single flight.

Any insight on this?

Extra sector based on demand.

That's what I assumed as well, but didn't see it as a bookable option on their website.

They seem to be doing well in Portland...wouldn't surprise me if they were to add MEX or MLM like they planned a couple years ago.

It's being discussed. Until AFAC gets their FAA safety rating back I wouldn't expect much of anything.

You see the double sections on SMF-GDL as well.

Not sure if this is old news but I just read that Icelandair has made PDX-KEF year round! I take it that route must be doing good which is always nice to hear.

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

Not sure if this is old news but I just read that Icelandair has made PDX-KEF year round! I take it that route must be doing good which is always nice to hear.

Woah, not old news at all. Can you attach the link to the article?

Phobia07 wrote:

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

Not sure if this is old news but I just read that Icelandair has made PDX-KEF year round! I take it that route must be doing good which is always nice to hear.

Woah, not old news at all. Can you attach the link to the article?

Flights appear to be bookable (4x weekly) up to January 7th: https://www.google.com/travel/flights/b ... B3UT0SAggB

Phobia07 wrote:

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

Not sure if this is old news but I just read that Icelandair has made PDX-KEF year round! I take it that route must be doing good which is always nice to hear.

Woah, not old news at all. Can you attach the link to the article?

Well now i’m just confused, I overheard on a different thread so I went to confirm on icelandairs website for booking and just picked a random date in January they were serving it so I took it as true but now I am looking at it and the service ends second week in january. I apologize for spreading false information as that was not my intention, on a separate note - has this service traditionally gone May-January? I could have sworn it previously ended before thanksgiving.

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

Phobia07 wrote:

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

Not sure if this is old news but I just read that Icelandair has made PDX-KEF year round! I take it that route must be doing good which is always nice to hear.

Woah, not old news at all. Can you attach the link to the article?

Well now i’m just confused, I overheard on a different thread so I went to confirm on icelandairs website for booking and just picked a random date in January they were serving it so I took it as true but now I am looking at it and the service ends second week in january. I apologize for spreading false information as that was not my intention, on a separate note - has this service traditionally gone May-January? I could have sworn it previously ended before thanksgiving.

No, it normally stops at the end of October.

AC4500 wrote:

pdxplanes837362 wrote:

Phobia07 wrote:

Woah, not old news at all. Can you attach the link to the article?

Well now i’m just confused, I overheard on a different thread so I went to confirm on icelandairs website for booking and just picked a random date in January they were serving it so I took it as true but now I am looking at it and the service ends second week in january. I apologize for spreading false information as that was not my intention, on a separate note - has this service traditionally gone May-January? I could have sworn it previously ended before thanksgiving.

No, it normally stops at the end of October.

Why would FI fly this route for 9 months and drop 3? It doesn’t make sense to me. Wouldn’t they rather lower frequency during the off season?

I flew PDX-DSM on G4 on Thursday, and the flight was almost 100% full. (My fare was something like $55). Just before starting our initial descent, the cabin crew noted that we should fill out the survey that would be emailed to us as PDX-DSM-PDX (or DSM-PDX-DSM) flyers loved having the route so much last year, that G4 would be operating the route into November this year, compared to the 2021 season ending in August.

AS737MAX wrote:

I flew PDX-DSM on G4 on Thursday, and the flight was almost 100% full. (My fare was something like $55). Just before starting our initial descent, the cabin crew noted that we should fill out the survey that would be emailed to us as PDX-DSM-PDX (or DSM-PDX-DSM) flyers loved having the route so much last year, that G4 would be operating the route into November this year, compared to the 2021 season ending in August.

Even though it would be a long flight on G4, they should add BNA from PDX. Alaska certainly isn’t going to any time soon with their issues, same for WN…G4 should give it a go. Not the most comfortable, but I’d use it.

flyoregon wrote:

AS737MAX wrote:

I flew PDX-DSM on G4 on Thursday, and the flight was almost 100% full. (My fare was something like $55). Just before starting our initial descent, the cabin crew noted that we should fill out the survey that would be emailed to us as PDX-DSM-PDX (or DSM-PDX-DSM) flyers loved having the route so much last year, that G4 would be operating the route into November this year, compared to the 2021 season ending in August.

Even though it would be a long flight on G4, they should add BNA from PDX. Alaska certainly isn’t going to any time soon with their issues, same for WN…G4 should give it a go. Not the most comfortable, but I’d use it.

I'm tempted to mention it, no harm I guess. The seat was pretty uncomfortable but it's clear AS isn't going to touch it. Hadn't WN announced it? I can't remember if it was pre-covid and then never started?

AS737MAX wrote:

I'm tempted to mention it, no harm I guess. The seat was pretty uncomfortable but it's clear AS isn't going to touch it. Hadn't WN announced it? I can't remember if it was pre-covid and then never started?

WN was originally planning on operating Saturday-only PDX-BNA nonstop service in Summer 2020 according to a press release at https://swamedia.com/releases/release-c ... st-10-2020, but those plans were dropped due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Well if they (G4) did BOI-BNA for a summer, the extra bit to PDX should be ok for most.

AS737MAX wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

AS737MAX wrote:

I flew PDX-DSM on G4 on Thursday, and the flight was almost 100% full. (My fare was something like $55). Just before starting our initial descent, the cabin crew noted that we should fill out the survey that would be emailed to us as PDX-DSM-PDX (or DSM-PDX-DSM) flyers loved having the route so much last year, that G4 would be operating the route into November this year, compared to the 2021 season ending in August.

Even though it would be a long flight on G4, they should add BNA from PDX. Alaska certainly isn’t going to any time soon with their issues, same for WN…G4 should give it a go. Not the most comfortable, but I’d use it.

I'm tempted to mention it, no harm I guess. The seat was pretty uncomfortable but it's clear AS isn't going to touch it. Hadn't WN announced it? I can't remember if it was pre-covid and then never started?

I flew TYS-MSP this morning and that was about 2 hours. It was tolerable but definitely not comfortable by any stretch.

jplatts wrote:

AS737MAX wrote:

I'm tempted to mention it, no harm I guess. The seat was pretty uncomfortable but it's clear AS isn't going to touch it. Hadn't WN announced it? I can't remember if it was pre-covid and then never started?

WN was originally planning on operating Saturday-only PDX-BNA nonstop service in Summer 2020 according to a press release at https://swamedia.com/releases/release-c ... st-10-2020, but those plans were dropped due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SY was also flying PDX-BNA at that point as well.

There's definitely a strong market for this route. I'm surprised AS planned on starting PDX-MSY before/instead of PDX-BNA.

AS schedule update for 1/9/23 - 2/15/23:
Positives:
- PDX-MCO increases from 1 to 2x daily. New flight is a red-eye departure (early morning return).
- PDX-HNL increases from 7 to 11x weekly. New flight is an evening departure (red-eye return)
- PDX-ANC back to 2x daily (previously scheduled as 1 daily).
- PDX-SMF is now all mainline (3x daily).
- PDX-OAK 1 of 2x daily is mainline.
- PDX-RNO now mainline, although only 1x daily.
Negatives:
- PDX-SLC down to 1x daily E175.
- PDX-TUS no longer mainline, back to E175s.
- PDX-LIH is now Saturday-only.
- PDX-FAT/STS decreased to 4x weekly.
- PDX-PVR/SJD decreased to 4x weekly.
- PDX-CUN/FLL/TPA remain Saturday-only.
- LAX-EUG/MFR suspended.
- LAX-RDM decreased to 2x weekly.

As jplatts stated the stats above, PDX-BNA has 75/day PDEW’s, and WN flies PDX-STL on Saturday’s at 51 PDEW’s. However, I believe the PDX-STL flight continues to Florida. WN’s schedule makers know what they are doing, but to an outsider, it seems to make more sense having a PDX-BNA-Florida connection. Of course, unless, there are more seats needed O/D from STL to Florida, and it fits perfectly for them.

AC4500 wrote:

AS schedule update for 1/9/23 - 2/15/23:
Positives:
- PDX-MCO increases from 1 to 2x daily. New flight is a red-eye departure (early morning return).
- PDX-HNL increases from 7 to 11x weekly. New flight is an evening departure (red-eye return)
- PDX-ANC back to 2x daily (previously scheduled as 1 daily).
- PDX-SMF is now all mainline (3x daily).
- PDX-OAK 1 of 2x daily is mainline.
- PDX-RNO now mainline, although only 1x daily.
Negatives:
- PDX-SLC down to 1x daily E175.
- PDX-TUS no longer mainline, back to E175s.
- PDX-LIH is now Saturday-only.
- PDX-FAT/STS decreased to 4x weekly.
- PDX-PVR/SJD decreased to 4x weekly.
- PDX-CUN/FLL/TPA remain Saturday-only.
- LAX-EUG/MFR suspended.
- LAX-RDM decreased to 2x weekly.

RNO at one daily is frustrating. Though, it is often this way (one flight) depending on the day, pretty awful options. But, they are the only option unfortunately. PDX-STS at 4x weekly seems a joke. My brother lives in Napa, and I’m constantly pricing the flight, versus going OAK and SFO, and it is always heavily booked, and twice as expensive. This route has to be about crew issues. It seems a cash cow, based on my myriad booking attempts. $600 R/T is the norm.

AC4500 wrote:

AS schedule update for 1/9/23 - 2/15/23:
Positives:
- PDX-MCO increases from 1 to 2x daily. New flight is a red-eye departure (early morning return).
- PDX-HNL increases from 7 to 11x weekly. New flight is an evening departure (red-eye return)
- PDX-ANC back to 2x daily (previously scheduled as 1 daily).
- PDX-SMF is now all mainline (3x daily).
- PDX-OAK 1 of 2x daily is mainline.
- PDX-RNO now mainline, although only 1x daily.
Negatives:
- PDX-SLC down to 1x daily E175.
- PDX-TUS no longer mainline, back to E175s.
- PDX-LIH is now Saturday-only.
- PDX-FAT/STS decreased to 4x weekly.
- PDX-PVR/SJD decreased to 4x weekly.
- PDX-CUN/FLL/TPA remain Saturday-only.
- LAX-EUG/MFR suspended.
- LAX-RDM decreased to 2x weekly.

I can appreciate that Alaska is having issues with staff and airplanes yada yada yada, it this is getting ridiculous. 1x daily to SLC on a 175? Seriously? The prices out of PDX on most routes are ridiculously high, schedules suck, and options becoming more limited. As has been said already, it would be nice for someone else to come in and start picking up the slack, but it’s unlikely.

Delta won’t because of what they have in Seattle.
United won’t because they funnel everything through San Francisco.
American won’t because of OW.
Southwest won’t because they have similar staffing issues.

LCCs could try, but they have crap schedules at 2x weekly or whatever.

It’s just frustrating that Alaska keep doing this. I’ve said on here before, going through SEA isn’t something I want to do…especially for shorter segments. So if I need to go to SLC, I’ll fly Delta from now on. I’ve been a loyal Alaska customer for many years, but that only goes so far.

flyoregon wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

AS schedule update for 1/9/23 - 2/15/23:
Positives:
- PDX-MCO increases from 1 to 2x daily. New flight is a red-eye departure (early morning return).
- PDX-HNL increases from 7 to 11x weekly. New flight is an evening departure (red-eye return)
- PDX-ANC back to 2x daily (previously scheduled as 1 daily).
- PDX-SMF is now all mainline (3x daily).
- PDX-OAK 1 of 2x daily is mainline.
- PDX-RNO now mainline, although only 1x daily.
Negatives:
- PDX-SLC down to 1x daily E175.
- PDX-TUS no longer mainline, back to E175s.
- PDX-LIH is now Saturday-only.
- PDX-FAT/STS decreased to 4x weekly.
- PDX-PVR/SJD decreased to 4x weekly.
- PDX-CUN/FLL/TPA remain Saturday-only.
- LAX-EUG/MFR suspended.
- LAX-RDM decreased to 2x weekly.

I can appreciate that Alaska is having issues with staff and airplanes yada yada yada, it this is getting ridiculous. 1x daily to SLC on a 175? Seriously? The prices out of PDX on most routes are ridiculously high, schedules suck, and options becoming more limited. As has been said already, it would be nice for someone else to come in and start picking up the slack, but it’s unlikely.

Yep, 1x daily to SLC is ridiculous. Why even bother when the competition has 5x daily 737s. On a similar note, I forgot to mention that PDX-DEN will be 5x weekly (not operating on Tuesdays and Saturdays), while UA and WN have a combined 8x daily flights. F9 even has more flights scheduled than AS.

On the positive side, the MCO and HNL increases are nice. PDX hasn't had two daily AS flights on either of these routes since before COVID, so hopefully that sticks. I have my doubts, though

Q1 will be a bit frustrating for Alaska flights. But it's also their worst quarter financially. With the Q400 and the A320s coming out of the fleet early in 2023, Alaska's total aircraft number will actually be similar (and possibly lower) than it was at the start of 2022. However, they are scheduled to get 36 MAX and 8 E175s in 2023. They have 2 737-800s and 10 A321s coming out of passenger service after the Q400/A320 transition. That's a net growth of 32 airplanes. That probably means many of these routes come back (assuming they were making money) as 2023 progresses.