ooslc wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Was playing around with DB1B data and came up with this fun table of the largest indirect O&Ds for each AS hub for Q3 2022 (domestic only):
Some of the SEA ones are pretty THICK (90 PDEW plus):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Clearly shows that PDX-ANC is a heavily underserved route. AS better be ready once WN starts flights to Alaska.

After this summer it'll probably be over 90 PDEW on that route. This summer is 1x daily PDX-ANC (makes no sense for summer season) and 20-21x a day SEA-ANC.

I doubt anyone has ever thought PDX should be bigger than Seattle for Alaska, but for the airlines “2nd largest hub” it’s ridiculously underserved, and that chart shows how much flow is going through Seattle when it could be served nonstop

ooslc wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Was playing around with DB1B data and came up with this fun table of the largest indirect O&Ds for each AS hub for Q3 2022 (domestic only):
Some of the SEA ones are pretty THICK (90 PDEW plus):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Clearly shows that PDX-ANC is a heavily underserved route. AS better be ready once WN starts flights to Alaska.

After this summer it'll probably be over 90 PDEW on that route. This summer is 1x daily PDX-ANC (makes no sense for summer season) and 20-21x a day SEA-ANC.

Not too long ago, PDX-ANC had 3 or 4 flights a day on AS, 1 DL, 1 B6, and 1 SY. Plus AS flew PDX-FAI as well.

jbs2886 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

ooslc wrote:

After this summer it'll probably be over 90 PDEW on that route. This summer is 1x daily PDX-ANC (makes no sense for summer season) and 20-21x a day SEA-ANC.

I doubt anyone has ever thought PDX should be bigger than Seattle for Alaska, but for the airlines “2nd largest hub” it’s ridiculously underserved, and that chart shows how much flow is going through Seattle when it could be served nonstop

“Ridiculously underserved” is a huge exaggeration - the highest connection PDEW is only 50% of a 739, we aren’t talking about routes here that are huge. Yes, I think AS has cut back PDX too much and I hope it grows it back, but this doesn’t prove the point you think it does.

50% of a 739 is quite a lot. Especially when that amount of capacity can fill an E175.

AS seems to be getting pretty complacent at PDX... perhaps DL should try PDX-ANC again?

ooslc wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Was playing around with DB1B data and came up with this fun table of the largest indirect O&Ds for each AS hub for Q3 2022 (domestic only):
Some of the SEA ones are pretty THICK (90 PDEW plus):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Clearly shows that PDX-ANC is a heavily underserved route. AS better be ready once WN starts flights to Alaska.

After this summer it'll probably be over 90 PDEW on that route. This summer is 1x daily PDX-ANC (makes no sense for summer season) and 20-21x a day SEA-ANC.

I think they should move 5 or more of the ANCSEA flights to PDX. Idk why they make ANC people route trough the seattle insanity when they just want to connect

AC4500 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

I doubt anyone has ever thought PDX should be bigger than Seattle for Alaska, but for the airlines “2nd largest hub” it’s ridiculously underserved, and that chart shows how much flow is going through Seattle when it could be served nonstop

“Ridiculously underserved” is a huge exaggeration - the highest connection PDEW is only 50% of a 739, we aren’t talking about routes here that are huge. Yes, I think AS has cut back PDX too much and I hope it grows it back, but this doesn’t prove the point you think it does.

50% of a 739 is quite a lot. Especially when that amount of capacity can fill an E175.

Not when trying to decide which nonstop routes to fly. To add another flight AS would have to belive it would stimulate traffic/steal connecting passengers from DL enough to fill a flight with profitable fares at a specific time and that loosing those passengers on SEA flight won't make one or more SEA flights unviable which would loose them connecting opportunities from other places....

32andBelow wrote:

ooslc wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Clearly shows that PDX-ANC is a heavily underserved route. AS better be ready once WN starts flights to Alaska.

After this summer it'll probably be over 90 PDEW on that route. This summer is 1x daily PDX-ANC (makes no sense for summer season) and 20-21x a day SEA-ANC.

I think they should move 5 or more of the ANCSEA flights to PDX. Idk why they make ANC people route trough the seattle insanity when they just want to connect

And lose a gate to DL? The route connections through SEA because that's where the connections are available.

Aliqiout wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

ooslc wrote:

After this summer it'll probably be over 90 PDEW on that route. This summer is 1x daily PDX-ANC (makes no sense for summer season) and 20-21x a day SEA-ANC.

I think they should move 5 or more of the ANCSEA flights to PDX. Idk why they make ANC people route trough the seattle insanity when they just want to connect

And lose a gate to DL? The route connections through SEA because that's where the connections are available.

I think this is playing into it for sure. It’s not so much Portland that is the issue, but the need to keep Seattle as mega of a mega hub it can be.

There are a lot of planes coming on in 2024+, I would guess that’s when PDX is built back up. It is their second largest hub as mentioned, while it appears puzzling to us, I imagine the AS planning group is being very deliberate with the slow return of flights to PDX. It’s kind of a weird market.

AC4500 wrote:

ooslc wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Clearly shows that PDX-ANC is a heavily underserved route. AS better be ready once WN starts flights to Alaska.

After this summer it'll probably be over 90 PDEW on that route. This summer is 1x daily PDX-ANC (makes no sense for summer season) and 20-21x a day SEA-ANC.

Not too long ago, PDX-ANC had 3 or 4 flights a day on AS, 1 DL, 1 B6, and 1 SY. Plus AS flew PDX-FAI as well.

The fact three of those aren’t trying that flight again may be telling of the strength in that market. CO/UA used to fly it, too. It would make sense for Delta the most and they aren’t even touching it this summer.

QXorVX wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

I think this is playing into it for sure. It’s not so much Portland that is the issue, but the need to keep Seattle as mega of a mega hub it can be.

There are a lot of planes coming on in 2024+, I would guess that’s when PDX is built back up. It is their second largest hub as mentioned, while it appears puzzling to us, I imagine the AS planning group is being very deliberate with the slow return of flights to PDX. It’s kind of a weird market.

Why is AS really needing to make defensive moves against DL at SEA when DL has made some cuts at SEA, including DL completely dropping SEA-IND/MKE/KIX nonstop service, DL dropping plans to resume SEA-DFW nonstop service, and DL dropping plans to start SEA-CMH nonstop service?

AS also probably does not have to worry about DL adding SEA-DCA nonstop service with the restrictions that are there with the DCA beyond-perimeter slot exemptions along with DL already using its DCA beyond-perimeter slot exemptions on DCA-LAX/SLC.

jplatts wrote:

QXorVX wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

I think this is playing into it for sure. It’s not so much Portland that is the issue, but the need to keep Seattle as mega of a mega hub it can be.

There are a lot of planes coming on in 2024+, I would guess that’s when PDX is built back up. It is their second largest hub as mentioned, while it appears puzzling to us, I imagine the AS planning group is being very deliberate with the slow return of flights to PDX. It’s kind of a weird market.

Why is AS really needing to make defensive moves against DL at SEA when DL has made some cuts at SEA, including DL completely dropping SEA-IND/MKE/KIX nonstop service, DL dropping plans to resume SEA-DFW nonstop service, and DL dropping plans to start SEA-CMH nonstop service?

AS also probably does not have to worry about DL adding SEA-DCA nonstop service with the restrictions that are there with the DCA beyond-perimeter slot exemptions along with DL already using its DCA beyond-perimeter slot exemptions on DCA-LAX/SLC.

Because SEA has a “use it or lose it” gate policy and AS wants to occupy as many gates as possible to limit DL’s growth potential. The examples you’ve provided could be used to demonstrate that this strategy has proven effective, as DL cutting routes or frequencies from SEA is the best outcome AS could ask for short of DL packing up shop and dismantling the hub.

QX Q400 N453QX ferried from from PDX to VCV today for storage.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/N453QX

jgcotter wrote:

QX Q400 N453QX ferried from from PDX to VCV today for storage.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/N453QX

Is that the last one off for storage?

USAirKid wrote:

jgcotter wrote:

QX Q400 N453QX ferried from from PDX to VCV today for storage.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/N453QX

Is that the last one off for storage?

Not sure, I’m showing ten more still parked at PDX.

QX Q400 N445QX is en route from from PDX to VCV for storage.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/N445QX

32andBelow wrote:

I think they should move 5 or more of the ANCSEA flights to PDX. Idk why they make ANC people route trough the seattle insanity when they just want to connect

I read this as ANCSA, and the best I could come up with was direct flights from Red Dog to Portland.

I've just returned to Australia from a ski trip in Idaho, booked to fly F on AS in and out of BOI... missed both flights due a tight QF connection on one end and a rental car issue on the other. AS rebooked me through PDX and SEA in both directions and were an absolute treat to fly with. Will be recommending to all OW flyers I know. Also great spotting from the lounge in SEA!

Here is where I show airplanes from "retired" fleets to be that are not what I would call "long term storage" or "transition to another airline". These include Marana (MZJ), Victorville (VCV) and Lake City, FL (LCQ). Planes in locations such as Greensboro (GSO), Everett (PAE), San Antonio (SAT), Portland (PDX), Pasco (PSC), Sault Ste Marie (YAM), Centralia, ON (YCE) are considered still in the "retirement process". Obviously if anyone has definitive information on the following airplanes, please share it. Here's the list - per research on flightradar24.com

A319 - Yes I know....but there are 2 airplanes that have not gone to long term storage or scrapping (per FR24). Marana was the destination for 7 of the airplanes. One airplane went to Kansas City. Two appear to be in Everett (527, 528). However, FR24 is conflicted about 527. It may be in PAE, GSO or RDU.

A320 - Only six are still in maintenance cities.
GSO (4) - 630, 639, 835, 839
SAT (1) - 840
PAE (1) - 837

Q400- There are still a lot of Qs not in long term storage. YAM has been a maintenance facility for the Qs and many are still there. YCE seems to do some final work on the airplanes before they return to PDX. PDX has many planes and FR24 indicates one over in PSC.
YAM (7) - 400, 404, 405, 432, 436, 438, 452
YCE (1) - 402
PSC (1) - 440 (Not sure if this one really is in PSC or in PDX - FR24 says PSC. it's the OSU plane so it would be easy to spot
PDX (8) - 403, 421, 426, 435, 443, 444, 446, 451

SuperDash wrote:

Here is where I show airplanes from "retired" fleets to be that are not what I would call "long term storage" or "transition to another airline". These include Marana (MZJ), Victorville (VCV) and Lake City, FL (LCQ). Planes in locations such as Greensboro (GSO), Everett (PAE), San Antonio (SAT), Portland (PDX), Pasco (PSC), Sault Ste Marie (YAM), Centralia, ON (YCE) are considered still in the "retirement process". Obviously if anyone has definitive information on the following airplanes, please share it. Here's the list - per research on flightradar24.com

A319 - Yes I know....but there are 2 airplanes that have not gone to long term storage or scrapping (per FR24). Marana was the destination for 7 of the airplanes. One airplane went to Kansas City. Two appear to be in Everett (527, 528). However, FR24 is conflicted about 527. It may be in PAE, GSO or RDU.

A320 - Only six are still in maintenance cities.
GSO (4) - 630, 639, 835, 839
SAT (1) - 840
PAE (1) - 837

Q400- There are still a lot of Qs not in long term storage. YAM has been a maintenance facility for the Qs and many are still there. YCE seems to do some final work on the airplanes before they return to PDX. PDX has many planes and FR24 indicates one over in PSC.
YAM (7) - 400, 404, 405, 432, 436, 438, 452
YCE (1) - 402
PSC (1) - 440 (Not sure if this one really is in PSC or in PDX - FR24 says PSC. it's the OSU plane so it would be easy to spot
PDX (8) - 403, 421, 426, 435, 443, 444, 446, 451

The FR24 track for 440/OSU of PDX-PSC shows 1/18/23 (QX9986) but I have a photo of it parked with the rest outside the QX hangar at PDX on 1/19. I think it’s still there.

AS737MAX wrote:

The FR24 track for 440/OSU of PDX-PSC shows 1/18/23 (QX9986) but I have a photo of it parked with the rest outside the QX hangar at PDX on 1/19. I think it’s still there.

Thanks...I had a suspicion that it was a false flight. Likely flown by an E75. But given PSC does maintenance for QX, it was possible. 451 had a false flight the day before (1/17) showing it would be in Spokane. But that one was a scheduled flight which I was able to figure out it was likely flown by an E75.

gmcc wrote:

A little AS LAX news, gates 68A and 66 are scheduled to open this week. The opening of the real gate 66 will put an end to the fake gate 66 which had been in the gate 64A area with a covered outside walkway and ramp to plane actually park at gate 66.

Did this happen because they were waiting on jetway delivery?

Wouldn’t the 7M7 be a great fit for stations like SBA/FAT/SBP where the E75s are perhaps to small on. high demand days while the 738/7M8 739/7M9 it’s too much of an upgauge? Other cities like BUR/SNA/TUS/MFR/EUG might be really great cities for them, as well as opening long thin routes to HNL & and giving finicky difficult to gauge cities like MEX another chance.

laca773 wrote:

gmcc wrote:

A little AS LAX news, gates 68A and 66 are scheduled to open this week. The opening of the real gate 66 will put an end to the fake gate 66 which had been in the gate 64A area with a covered outside walkway and ramp to plane actually park at gate 66.

Did this happen because they were waiting on jetway delivery?

Wouldn’t the 7M7 be a great fit for stations like SBA/FAT/SBP where the E75s are perhaps to small on. high demand days while the 738/7M8 739/7M9 it’s too much of an upgauge? Other cities like BUR/SNA/TUS/MFR/EUG might be really great cities for them, as well as opening long thin routes to HNL & and giving finicky difficult to gauge cities like MEX another chance.

The walkway gate 66 was active in Jan/Feb, I haven't been back recently so I can't verify they are now using the actual jetway now.

It wasn't that they were waiting for the jet bridge. It was installed but moved out of the way. I think there might have been a delay in getting the gate area ready since 66 is in the area of the new bus gate.

While AS can change their MAX order to any varient, I am not sure they will add the -7.as I don't think AS see any routes that wouldn't work with the -8 or the E175.

laca773 wrote:

gmcc wrote:

A little AS LAX news, gates 68A and 66 are scheduled to open this week. The opening of the real gate 66 will put an end to the fake gate 66 which had been in the gate 64A area with a covered outside walkway and ramp to plane actually park at gate 66.

Did this happen because they were waiting on jetway delivery?

Wouldn’t the 7M7 be a great fit for stations like SBA/FAT/SBP where the E75s are perhaps to small on. high demand days while the 738/7M8 739/7M9 it’s too much of an upgauge? Other cities like BUR/SNA/TUS/MFR/EUG might be really great cities for them, as well as opening long thin routes to HNL & and giving finicky difficult to gauge cities like MEX another chance.

What about the 220? In addition to existing routes where an E175 might be a bit small but a 737 is too big, you could open up more non-stops to Alaska as well as more medium cities in the Midwest and East.

gunsontheroof wrote:

jplatts wrote:

QXorVX wrote:

Why is AS really needing to make defensive moves against DL at SEA when DL has made some cuts at SEA, including DL completely dropping SEA-IND/MKE/KIX nonstop service, DL dropping plans to resume SEA-DFW nonstop service, and DL dropping plans to start SEA-CMH nonstop service?

AS also probably does not have to worry about DL adding SEA-DCA nonstop service with the restrictions that are there with the DCA beyond-perimeter slot exemptions along with DL already using its DCA beyond-perimeter slot exemptions on DCA-LAX/SLC.

Because SEA has a “use it or lose it” gate policy and AS wants to occupy as many gates as possible to limit DL’s growth potential. The examples you’ve provided could be used to demonstrate that this strategy has proven effective, as DL cutting routes or frequencies from SEA is the best outcome AS could ask for short of DL packing up shop and dismantling the hub.

SEA’s gating policy isn’t necessarily “use it or lose it.” You could actually fly less flights and GAIN a gate. It’s strictly the amount of seats flown in the month of august the previous year. So you could for instance cut 2 E175 flights at 76 pax each and replace it with a 737 or airbus with 190 seats and it’d be a net gain in the gating calculation.

flyfresno wrote:

laca773 wrote:

gmcc wrote:

A little AS LAX news, gates 68A and 66 are scheduled to open this week. The opening of the real gate 66 will put an end to the fake gate 66 which had been in the gate 64A area with a covered outside walkway and ramp to plane actually park at gate 66.

Did this happen because they were waiting on jetway delivery?

Wouldn’t the 7M7 be a great fit for stations like SBA/FAT/SBP where the E75s are perhaps to small on. high demand days while the 738/7M8 739/7M9 it’s too much of an upgauge? Other cities like BUR/SNA/TUS/MFR/EUG might be really great cities for them, as well as opening long thin routes to HNL & and giving finicky difficult to gauge cities like MEX another chance.

What about the 220? In addition to existing routes where an E175 might be a bit small but a 737 is too big, you could open up more non-stops to Alaska as well as more medium cities in the Midwest and East.

It is possible but not very likely. Having almost completed the transition to a single all Boeing fleet I doubt AS would reintroduce another mainline type. It would have to be mainline as the AS pilots secured a scope clause in their latest contract limiting regional jets to 76 seats.

gmcc wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

laca773 wrote:

Did this happen because they were waiting on jetway delivery?

Wouldn’t the 7M7 be a great fit for stations like SBA/FAT/SBP where the E75s are perhaps to small on. high demand days while the 738/7M8 739/7M9 it’s too much of an upgauge? Other cities like BUR/SNA/TUS/MFR/EUG might be really great cities for them, as well as opening long thin routes to HNL & and giving finicky difficult to gauge cities like MEX another chance.

What about the 220? In addition to existing routes where an E175 might be a bit small but a 737 is too big, you could open up more non-stops to Alaska as well as more medium cities in the Midwest and East.

It is possible but not very likely. Having almost completed the transition to a single all Boeing fleet I doubt AS would reintroduce another mainline type. It would have to be mainline as the AS pilots secured a scope clause in their latest contract limiting regional jets to 76 seats.

I agree. I don't think AS will go for other new types other than the MAX 7's. Any outside chance of a different type, I would think the E190-E2's would come to mind...not the 220.

About gate space, do we have a break down of what is signatory vs common use/preferential @ SeaTac?

MAX 9 #43 N962AK has delivered and is on its way to OAK for post delivery work

This was only the 4th delivery this year. Assuming the schedule in the 10K is still correct, the remainder of the year should see 4.5 deliveries per month (33 MAX, 8 E75)

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N96 ... /KBFI/KOAK

ABQ-PDX flight last Sunday was half-full; is this a seasonal thing or result of AS cutting back frequency?

yes, true - we will see this coming Sunday what load it has.

AS does have opportunities to add additional nonstop routes to the Midwest out of LAX/PDX/SAN/SFO, including LAX-CVG/MKE, PDX-CVG/CMH/DTW/IND/MKE/OMA/STL, SAN-CVG/CMH/MKE, and SFO-CVG/MKE.

There were also discussions about the possibility of AS adding CVG-SAN/SFO nonstop service with AA codeshares over in the AA Network thread at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1479971&p=23613007#p23613007.

There is also room for AS or another airline to add MKE-LAX/SAN/SFO nonstop service with MKE no longer having any nonstop service to California.

Will AS take advantage of the opportunities that are there to add additional nonstop routes to the Midwest out of LAX/PDX/SAN/SFO?

jplatts wrote:

AS does have opportunities to add additional nonstop routes to the Midwest out of LAX/PDX/SAN/SFO, including LAX-CVG/MKE, PDX-CVG/CMH/DTW/IND/MKE/OMA/STL, SAN-CVG/CMH/MKE, and SFO-CVG/MKE.

jplatts, I appreciate your enthusiasm for new routes, and for routinely bringing PDEW data into your posts, but I'm going to challenge you here on your AS LAX-CVG route suggestion.

DL is #1 by passenger departures at LAX. AS is #5, with a bit more than 1/3 DL's share. See LAWA data for 2022.

https://www.lawa.org/lawa-investor-rela ... statistics

DL is an easy #1 at CVG according to RITA BTS statistics for full-year 2022. DL + its regional Endeavor have well over 2x the share of #2 Allegiant.

DL isn't even flying LAX-CVG daily in April. There is no other carrier on the route. AS doesn't have a ULCC cost structure, and LAX-CVG isn't a route that could see much demand stimulation, anyway. AS would also be competing with numerous hub connections that can be marginally priced to fill planes. There's no chance AS could make LAX-CVG work.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DL isn't even flying LAX-CVG daily in April. There is no other carrier on the route. AS doesn't have a ULCC cost structure, and LAX-CVG isn't a route that could see much demand stimulation, anyway. AS would also be competing with numerous hub connections that can be marginally priced to fill planes. There's no chance AS could make LAX-CVG work.

G4 also still has less-than-daily nonstop service to LAX from CVG in addition to DL.

DL was also still operating 2 daily nonstops on LAX-CVG route in Summer 2019, and LAX-CVG also had F9 nonstop service in Summer 2019 in addition to DL/G4 LAX-CVG nonstop service.

AA was also considering adding LAX-CVG nonstop service according to a Cincinnati Business Courier article that can be found at https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/ ... -push.html.

The PDEW of Greater Los Angeles to CVG was also 308 passengers/day in Q3 2021, and there was an average of 115 passengers/day in each direction connecting between Greater Los Angeles and CVG on airlines other than DL or G4.

There is also certainly stimulation potential on LAX-CVG as Greater Los Angeles-CVG nonstop capacity is still down from pre-pandemic levels, even with the less-than-daily MX SNA-CVG nonstop service that was recently added.

jplatts wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

DL isn't even flying LAX-CVG daily in April. There is no other carrier on the route. AS doesn't have a ULCC cost structure, and LAX-CVG isn't a route that could see much demand stimulation, anyway. AS would also be competing with numerous hub connections that can be marginally priced to fill planes. There's no chance AS could make LAX-CVG work.

G4 also still has less-than-daily nonstop service to LAX from CVG in addition to DL.

DL was also still operating 2 daily nonstops on LAX-CVG route in Summer 2019, and LAX-CVG also had F9 nonstop service in Summer 2019 in addition to DL/G4 LAX-CVG nonstop service.

AA was also considering adding LAX-CVG nonstop service according to a Cincinnati Business Courier article that can be found at https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/ ... -push.html.

The PDEW of Greater Los Angeles to CVG was also 308 passengers/day in Q3 2021, and there was an average of 115 passengers/day in each direction connecting between Greater Los Angeles and CVG on airlines other than DL or G4.

There is also certainly stimulation potential on LAX-CVG as Greater Los Angeles-CVG nonstop capacity is still down from pre-pandemic levels, even with the less-than-daily MX SNA-CVG nonstop service that was recently added.

Yes, there is the demand for more nonstop service, but it won't be on AS. Likely will be AA, however, I'm sure they know DL will magically start 2-3x/day if they were to enter. Unlikely anyone other than LCCs challenge DL on this route for the time being.

MIflyer12 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

AS does have opportunities to add additional nonstop routes to the Midwest out of LAX/PDX/SAN/SFO, including LAX-CVG/MKE, PDX-CVG/CMH/DTW/IND/MKE/OMA/STL, SAN-CVG/CMH/MKE, and SFO-CVG/MKE.

jplatts, I appreciate your enthusiasm for new routes, and for routinely bringing PDEW data into your posts, but I'm going to challenge you here on your AS LAX-CVG route suggestion.

DL is #1 by passenger departures at LAX. AS is #5, with a bit more than 1/3 DL's share. See LAWA data for 2022.

https://www.lawa.org/lawa-investor-rela ... statistics

DL is an easy #1 at CVG according to RITA BTS statistics for full-year 2022. DL + its regional Endeavor have well over 2x the share of #2 Allegiant.

DL isn't even flying LAX-CVG daily in April. There is no other carrier on the route. AS doesn't have a ULCC cost structure, and LAX-CVG isn't a route that could see much demand stimulation, anyway. AS would also be competing with numerous hub connections that can be marginally priced to fill planes. There's no chance AS could make LAX-CVG work.

Right, LAX-CVG isn't going to happen but some of the other routes mentioned are possible. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

jplatts wrote:

AS does have opportunities to add additional nonstop routes to the Midwest out of LAX/PDX/SAN/SFO, including LAX-CVG/MKE, PDX-CVG/CMH/DTW/IND/MKE/OMA/STL, SAN-CVG/CMH/MKE, and SFO-CVG/MKE.

There were also discussions about the possibility of AS adding CVG-SAN/SFO nonstop service with AA codeshares over in the AA Network thread at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1479971&p=23613007#p23613007.

There is also room for AS or another airline to add MKE-LAX/SAN/SFO nonstop service with MKE no longer having any nonstop service to California.

Will AS take advantage of the opportunities that are there to add additional nonstop routes to the Midwest out of LAX/PDX/SAN/SFO?

Given that AS has publicly stated network growth in 2023 would mostly be adding frequency on existing routes as opposed to adding new routes it is very unlikely AS adds anything new this year. Once they get enough planes and pilots to fly them, PDX & SFO would probably be where expansion will occur first. LAX might get more flights once T6 gets all its' gates operational again, supposedly in 2023 but given the weather delays it will probably stretch into 2024.

AC4500 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

I doubt anyone has ever thought PDX should be bigger than Seattle for Alaska, but for the airlines “2nd largest hub” it’s ridiculously underserved, and that chart shows how much flow is going through Seattle when it could be served nonstop

“Ridiculously underserved” is a huge exaggeration - the highest connection PDEW is only 50% of a 739, we aren’t talking about routes here that are huge. Yes, I think AS has cut back PDX too much and I hope it grows it back, but this doesn’t prove the point you think it does.

50% of a 739 is quite a lot. Especially when that amount of capacity can fill an E175.

Love that you predicted this cause I think it was you that posted in the Oregon aviation that a 2nd daily E175 was added this August.

Also does anyone know if N537AS, the Disneyland Resort Pixar Pier livery, is getting repainted? It's been in SAT for 2 weeks.

ooslc wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

“Ridiculously underserved” is a huge exaggeration - the highest connection PDEW is only 50% of a 739, we aren’t talking about routes here that are huge. Yes, I think AS has cut back PDX too much and I hope it grows it back, but this doesn’t prove the point you think it does.

50% of a 739 is quite a lot. Especially when that amount of capacity can fill an E175.

Love that you predicted this cause I think it was you that posted in the Oregon aviation that a 2nd daily E175 was added this August.

Also does anyone know if N537AS, the Disneyland Resort Pixar Pier livery, is getting repainted? It's been in SAT for 2 weeks.

According to weebly site it is in SAT for 2KU mods.
https://alaskafleetstatus.weebly.com/737-800.html

teachpdx wrote:

I got an email today from AS mentioning that “you will no longer be able to print a paper boarding pass” at check-in out of PDX. The email had a big push for app download and handling everything online. The only paper anything will be bag tags, or I assume if you visit an agent at the desk.
I’m all for mobile everything, but hadn’t really heard of this happening very much. Is this common for AS at other locations or is this just PDX-specific, like a pilot project or something?

AS announced this in BOI recently, too.

Is SFO-TPA in November a placeholder or will it be brought back for winter 2023?

A paper boarding pass doesn't vanish when the incoming flight is 2+ hours late and your flight gets reset - making your online check in vanish.

teachpdx wrote:

I got an email today from AS mentioning that “you will no longer be able to print a paper boarding pass” at check-in out of PDX. The email had a big push for app download and handling everything online. The only paper anything will be bag tags, or I assume if you visit an agent at the desk.
I’m all for mobile everything, but hadn’t really heard of this happening very much. Is this common for AS at other locations or is this just PDX-specific, like a pilot project or something?

AS trialed this at MSO for several months, with a special travel advisory, before the wider rollout.
A current roster of the bag tag set up along with the next airports can be found at the following link by scrolling down or clicking on tha airport check in link

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/advis ... R_Regional

I find it interesting that there has been no press release. Maybe it will appear in the Q1 earnings call

Pontiac wrote:

A paper boarding pass doesn't vanish when the incoming flight is 2+ hours late and your flight gets reset - making your online check in vanish.

I’ve never had that happen. I have had apps automatically update seats and rebooking while paper boarding passes had to be reprinted.

gmcc wrote:

teachpdx wrote:

I got an email today from AS mentioning that “you will no longer be able to print a paper boarding pass” at check-in out of PDX. The email had a big push for app download and handling everything online. The only paper anything will be bag tags, or I assume if you visit an agent at the desk.
I’m all for mobile everything, but hadn’t really heard of this happening very much. Is this common for AS at other locations or is this just PDX-specific, like a pilot project or something?

AS trialed this at MSO for several months, with a special travel advisory, before the wider rollout.
A current roster of the bag tag set up along with the next airports can be found at the following link by scrolling down or clicking on tha airport check in link

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/advis ... R_Regional

I find it interesting that there has been no press release. Maybe it will appear in the Q1 earnings call

How I read this it specifically says that the kiosks won’t print a boarding pass… does that mean that agents still can do so? IMHO that’d be a reasonable middle ground..

USAirKid wrote:

gmcc wrote:

teachpdx wrote:

I got an email today from AS mentioning that “you will no longer be able to print a paper boarding pass” at check-in out of PDX. The email had a big push for app download and handling everything online. The only paper anything will be bag tags, or I assume if you visit an agent at the desk.
I’m all for mobile everything, but hadn’t really heard of this happening very much. Is this common for AS at other locations or is this just PDX-specific, like a pilot project or something?

AS trialed this at MSO for several months, with a special travel advisory, before the wider rollout.
A current roster of the bag tag set up along with the next airports can be found at the following link by scrolling down or clicking on tha airport check in link

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/advis ... R_Regional

I find it interesting that there has been no press release. Maybe it will appear in the Q1 earnings call

How I read this it specifically says that the kiosks won’t print a boarding pass… does that mean that agents still can do so? IMHO that’d be a reasonable middle ground..

Yes agents can still print boarding passes (at least they have been able to athe airports where this has already been rolled out). AS isn't going F9 on us.