Why No ANC Tpac Hub?

ytz · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:26 pm

I know ANC is a tpac cargo hub and fuel stop. But how come the same never really happened on the pax side? And I mean beyond just a refuelling stop. ANC is so well positioned to be the LHR or DXB of the North Pacific.

SpaceshipDC10 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:40 pm

Quoting ytz (Thread starter):
ANC is so well positioned to be the LHR or DXB of the North Pacific.

So well positioned from where ? Nowadays, airlines can fly nonstop from North America to eastern Asia cities. The only time ANC was a major place regarding passenger flight was before Russia opened its airspace and when European carrier were flying to Japan (for instance) through ANC. Then everything changed, including long-haul aircraft range. Even YVR is being more and more bypassed by trans-Pacific flights, so why would anyone build a hub up there in Alaska?

Stitch · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:48 pm

Quoting ytz (Thread starter):
ANC is so well positioned to be the LHR or DXB of the North Pacific.

The distances between North America and Asia are well within the non-stop design range of most widebody aircraft families so there is no need to stop in ANC.

Cargo still uses ANC because, unlike passenger planes, they tend to fly near their MZFW and therefore they trade fuel weight for payload weight across the Pacific and need to make the fuel stop.

2travel2know2 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:01 pm

Since ANC seems to be the only U.S. airport which allows passengers to transit without a visa, there might be chance for an Asian or Latin American airline to use ANC as a stop en-route between Asia and Latin America.
However, one could imagine UA flying oneday ORD/EWR-ANC (feed from SFO/LAX/PDX/SFO) -GUM, with perhaps tag-on to China, because GUM-China is open skies.
Also ANC-TYO may be doable on B757, it there's a market for that.

flyby519 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:18 pm

I'd love to see AS make it a tpac hub. The 737MAX should be able to do ANC-NRT

SESGDL · Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:23 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 1):
So well positioned from where ? Nowadays, airlines can fly nonstop from North America to eastern Asia cities. The only time ANC was a major place regarding passenger flight was before Russia opened its airspace and when European carrier were flying to Japan (for instance) through ANC. Then everything changed, including long-haul aircraft range. Even YVR is being more and more bypassed by trans-Pacific flights, so why would anyone build a hub up there in Alaska?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The distances between North America and Asia are well within the non-stop design range of most widebody aircraft families so there is no need to stop in ANC.

The same can be said for DXB, AUH, DOH or IST. Why would anyone fly LHR-Asia or ME via DXB when they can fly nonstop?

Jeremy

mtnwest1979 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:34 pm

I suppose it would be a set up like Reykjavik. Many airlines and a/c fly N America- Europe n/s, but Icelandair seems to have found a nice niche in what they do.

flyby519 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:37 pm

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 5):
The same can be said for DXB, AUH, DOH or IST. Why would anyone fly LHR-Asia or ME via DXB when they can fly nonstop?

Cheaper tickets and more city pair options

LH707330 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:45 pm

Quoting ytz (Thread starter):
I know ANC is a tpac cargo hub and fuel stop. But how come the same never really happened on the pax side? And I mean beyond just a refuelling stop. ANC is so well positioned to be the LHR or DXB of the North Pacific.

The 1960s called, they want their refueling stops back! As others have stated, range and airspace have made these obsolete, though there was some discussion here a while back of AS doing cheaper US secondary to Asia markets in a manner similar to Icelandair's operations over the Atlantic. If you're going between two smaller cities, it may make more sense to fly a one-stop through ANC or KEF than go two stop to your local hub, cross the pond to a second hub, then take another spoke route to your destination. The only problem with this is that these secondary markets are typically low-yielding, so there's not much service.

gunsontheroof · Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:49 pm

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 4):
I'd love to see AS make it a tpac hub. The 737MAX should be able to do ANC-NRT

Quoting MtnWest1979 (Reply 6):
I suppose it would be a set up like Reykjavik. Many airlines and a/c fly N America- Europe n/s, but Icelandair seems to have found a nice niche in what they do.

It would be interesting to see AS take a go at a similar arrangement to FI with connections between East Asia and the U.S. allowing for "free stopovers" in Alaska to promote tourism, but I doubt the market would make it economically feasible. Fun a.net pipe dream, though!

mcdu · Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:24 pm

To have a hub you need O&D traffic to support the network. Without the O&D demand you have DAY, BNA, CVG, MEM, CLE, CMH, RDU etc etc

nomorerjs · Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:26 pm

Given today's technology and the future, no need for fuel stops. New aircraft can fly JFK to SYD and SIN nonstop.

ANC could serve as a scissors hub, but SEA and other cities in the Lower 48 can do that and pull in LatAm traffic as well.

777STL · Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:33 pm

Quoting ytz (Thread starter):
But how come the same never really happened on the pax side? And I mean beyond just a refuelling stop. ANC is so well positioned to be the LHR or DXB of the North Pacific.

Why would you want or need to stop in ANC? Modern pax aircraft can easily do east and mid Asia without a problem from the entire CONUS.

FWIW, I think FX has started flying some of their Asia routes direct to the CONUS rather than stopping in ANC, now that they have the 77L.

As a connecting hub, well, why would you connect somewhere that's 2000 miles from your destination? That sort of flying would never be economical.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 9):
It would be interesting to see AS take a go at a similar arrangement to FI with connections between East Asia and the U.S. allowing for "free stopovers" in Alaska to promote tourism, but I doubt the market would make it economically feasible.

FWIW, I think AS had a few regional routes to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early/mid 90s. Supporting mostly native populations, the flights didn't last.

SpaceshipDC10 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:33 pm

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 5):
The same can be said for DXB, AUH, DOH or IST. Why would anyone fly LHR-Asia or ME via DXB when they can fly nonstop?

It all depends on where you are. Not every passenger on a LHR-Asia flight is actually coming from London. Also, flying via said airports maybe more enjoyable for some than LHR. This is also part HEL's success. Also, if you are heading to Oceania, you can't get there nonstop anyway.

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 7):
Cheaper tickets and more city pair options

As well as the level of service on board in First and Business, and also to a certain extent the shopping mall experience/opportunity of DXB.

flyby519 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:48 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 13):
As well as the level of service on board in First and Business, and also to a certain extent the shopping mall experience/opportunity of DXB.

I'd like to see more airports created as attractions and part of the vacation, as opposed to just a transit point along the way. It will be interesting to watch DXB/DWC do that.

mtnwest1979 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:24 pm

Quoting 777stl (Reply 12):
As a connecting hub, well, why would you connect somewhere that's 2000 miles from your destination? That sort of flying would never be economical.

Clear that statement up for me. So if one was flying ATL-SEA-NRT, that must be uneconomical, since SEA is over 2000 miles from both ATL and NRT.

strfyr51 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:34 pm

ANC is an excellent cargo hub because Airplanes coming out of Asia are usually at Max Gross weight and also Max Zero fuel Weight so thus range Limited. ANC also allows for re-sorting to forward freight to different regios of the US and Canada directly This concept does NOT work for passengers because there are direct flights to asia from different gateways within the US and Canada and as compared to Passenger Liners there are very few Freight Liners..

N766UA · Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:36 pm

Who on earth would want to stop in Alaska? I mean, seriously, nobody wants to do that. If I want to get to Asia, I'll hop a 50 minute flight to JFK or an hour and 20 to Boston, not 6 hours to friggen Anchorage.

flyby519 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:56 pm

Quoting N766UA (Reply 17):

Who on earth would want to stop in Alaska? I mean, seriously, nobody wants to do that. If I want to get to Asia, I'll hop a 50 minute flight to JFK or an hour and 20 to Boston, not 6 hours to friggen Anchorage.

I honestly don't know, but would a passenger prefer a 1hr flight followed by a 13hr flight? Or a 7hr flight followed by a 7hr flight?

N766UA · Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:09 am

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 18):
I honestly don't know, but would a passenger prefer a 1hr flight followed by a 13hr flight? Or a 7hr flight followed by a 7hr flight?

I suppose it depends, but I'd rather just be on my way and get it over with.

Cactus739 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:09 am

I had a couple trips in the very early 1990's from Anchorqge. One was a JAL 747 to NRT that had come in from LHR. The return flight to ANC continued back to LHR. Another trip was a BA 747 to LHR that originated in NRT. Likewise the return was routed LHR - ANC - NRT.

Both times I was in a group of students from my high school (20 or so kids and chaperones) and if my memory is right both times we were pretty much the only people to deplane I n Anchorqge.

Viscount724 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:50 am

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 5):
The same can be said for DXB, AUH, DOH or IST. Why would anyone fly LHR-Asia or ME via DXB when they can fly nonstop?

Because you can connect hundreds of city pairs that have no nonstop service with just one stop when you connect at the ME hubs.

ANC was a frequent fuel stop on transpacific services (and on Europe-Japan/Korea routes) when aircraft lacked the range for nonstop service (and until the Soviet Union opened the Trans-Siberian route to European carriers). Once passengers could do it nonstop, nobody wanted an unnecessary stop at ANC.

You also need a reasonable amount of O&D traffic at a hub to make it viable which was another problem for ANC.

ytz · Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:52 am

I'm thinking more like a wave hub. Virtually all of the US is within reach of a narrowbody from ANC. And all North Asia could be run to using shorter range widebodies at full load. Or even some of those widebodies to the CONUS.

So some 787-10s and 321NEOs working at peak efficiency. Rather than a bunch of routes that not to long ago would have been considered ultra long haul.

Keep in mind there was nothing in DXB when they started building that hub.

And it would make less feasible routes possible.
For example, places like KIX would have way more US/Canada options with the one stop at ANC. Pasengers from JFK would gain better one stop options to places like MNL and SGN.

I would posit that this would be much more efficient than running routes like DTW-MNL with a 777 beyond the max payload range.

flyby519 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:00 am

Quoting ytz (Reply 22):

And if it is true about allowing intl-to-intl pax connections without a visa in ANC then that could make it more attractive for Euro-Asia flows.

Is there much demand for Europeans to travel to Hawaii as a leisure destination? ANC would serve as an efficient stopping point.

[Edited 2014-02-09 18:05:11]

747megatop · Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:11 am

Quoting ytz (Thread starter):
And I mean beyond just a refuelling stop. ANC is so well positioned to be the LHR or DXB of the North Pacific.

Well ANC is in the middle of nowhere and nothing much happens there. Anchorage is NOT a London or Dubai

.

Viscount724 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:17 am

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 23):
Is there much demand for Europeans to travel to Hawaii as a leisure destination? ANC would serve as an efficient stopping point.

It didn't work for Western Airlines when they operated HNL-ANC-LGW with DC-10s.That route lasted about 18 months around 1980/81.

747megatop · Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:39 am

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 23):
Is there much demand for Europeans to travel to Hawaii as a leisure destination? ANC would serve as an efficient stopping point.

How is it efficient for the airlines? LHR-ANC is 3901 nm while LHR-SEA is 4171 nm (just 270 miles longer). Airlines would be better off flying SEA-Europe non stops (which LH,DL,BA already do) since SEA is a major vibrant city with a strong industry. Passengers can then transfer over to a SEA-Hawaii connection.

[Edited 2014-02-09 18:40:09]

[Edited 2014-02-09 18:40:36]

[email protected] · Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:14 am

The missing part for ANC being getting a int. HUB is the lag of O&D traffic.
I would say nearly every major HUB has a certain O&D traffic, which pays a premium to the HUB carrier as they offer them a bunch of non stop options.
Hardly see any viable premium O&D traffic from ANC.
So ANC operation would just be a 2nd class option because they can "only" offer one stop connections...

ADent · Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:04 am

It is too far to go many places on a narrowbody. If EWR-TXL (3458nm) is pushing the range on a 757, looks line ANC-TYO (3005nm) and ANC-HEL (3522) are about the only places to connect up.

Nobody has the cash to setup a widebody hub on speculation, esp to/from a place with low O&D.

How about a nice hub at GUM? Sure you need widebody feed to the US mainland, but you can use narrowbodies to serve TYO, HKG, SIN, SYD, etc.

JA743J · Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:37 am

Quoting ytz (Reply 22):
I'm thinking more like a wave hub. Virtually all of the US is within reach of a narrowbody from ANC. And all North Asia could be run to using shorter range widebodies at full load. Or even some of those widebodies to the CONUS.

How many US cities have a non-stop to ANC? Do you really think there will be enough TPAC demand from each cities to fill a plane in many smaller cities currently served via hubs? If there is, I think these cities would aleady have a TPAC flight by themselves.

Quoting ADent (Reply 28):
How about a nice hub at GUM? Sure you need widebody feed to the US mainland, but you can use narrowbodies to serve TYO, HKG, SIN, SYD, etc.

It'll be a great detour from GC route. I think it'll work for SE asia, but not so much for northeast.

yvrsr · Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:49 am

As people have said above,

(1) Planes now have sufficient range to fly nonstop from North America to cities in Asia that might be served by an ANC hub.

(2) Typically a hub has a significant amount of O&D traffic. ANC has minimal O&D traffic to Asia.

For reasons (1) and (2), the idea of setting up St John's, Newfoundland as a hub for WestJet to serve Europe simply doesn't make sense to me. For those who don't know, WestJet is starting a flight Toronto-St John's - Dublin using a 737. People on this site have suggested the possibility of a scissor hub at St John's connecting cities in Canada to several cities in Europe.

(A) I believe that one can already reach most cities in Europe from the major cities in Canada either with a non-stop or 1 connection in LHR, FRA, CDG, AMS, etc.

(B) There is minimal O&D traffic to/from St John's and Europe. For those who don't know, St John's is the easternmost city in Canada and it has a population of only 170K. The Maritime provinces (4 easternmost provinces) have a population less then 3 million - less than 10% of the entire country. There is already a nonstop flight between Halifax (the most populous city in the Maritimes) and LHR and a summer nonstop between St John's and LHR.

Unless WestJet can make money with extremely cheap fares, I don't think the hub in St John's makes sense.

csavel · Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:52 am

Quoting ytz (Reply 22):
For example, places like KIX would have way more US/Canada options with the one stop at ANC. Pasengers from JFK would gain better one stop options to places like MNL and SGN.

I would posit that this would be much more efficient than running routes like DTW-MNL with a 777 beyond the max payload range.

For that matter, it seems that Honolulu would make a much better trans-pacific hub. O&D smack dab in the middle of the freakin' ocean. East Coast Honolulu AUstralia/NZ w/o having to either go to Asia or the madness that is LAX. one stop to MNL and SGN as well, should HA decide to bring back Manila and perhaps make themselves a hub. That would make a heck of a lot more sense than ANC frankly.

Of course since you simply cannot transit through any US airport, this ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

TheCheese · Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:36 am

Quoting JA743J (Reply 29):

How many US cities have a non-stop to ANC? Do you really think there will be enough TPAC demand from each cities to fill a plane in many smaller cities currently served via hubs?

Actually, there are a lot of non-stops to ANC from US cities (Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Houston and Newark to name a few), but they are mostly seasonal. That doesn't help ANC as far as being a Trans-Pacific hub, because nearly 100% of the traffic on those seasonal flights is heading to ANC as a tourist destination. The tourists aren't interested in going to Asia; they want to have their Alaskan Adventure for a week or two, then go back home.

With the population of the Anchorage Metro area being just under 300,000 people and the whole of the state totaling less than 750,000 folks, the O&D for the area is nil. The extended O&D catchment area (Pacific Northwest, primarily Seattle and Portland) already has non-stop service to several Asian markets, so those folks wouldn't want to go to ANC first when they could already be a third of the way to Asia instead.

tommy1808 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:54 am

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 18):
I honestly don't know, but would a passenger prefer a 1hr flight followed by a 13hr flight? Or a 7hr flight followed by a 7hr flight?

Most will select the 7+7 hour flight. Only that in the real world the pick is usually something along the lines of 1 + 13 hours with 60-90 Minutes layover between the two at a rather convenient time of day vs. ~8 and 8~ hours of flying with a several hours layover in the middle of the night.

best regards
Thomas

Mir · Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:49 pm

There's no ANC transpacific hub because there's very little market from ANC to the US, and even less to Asia. You can't build a network like that on connections alone. Also,

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 8):
If you're going between two smaller cities, it may make more sense to fly a one-stop through ANC or KEF than go two stop to your local hub, cross the pond to a second hub, then take another spoke route to your destination.

Except that all the cities served by FI in the US are major cities, so anywhere that FI could take you in Europe via KEF could be reached by another carrier with one connection as well, either in the US or in Europe.

-Mir

lightsaber · Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:13 pm

Once upon a time the ME3 were fuel stops. But they built up O&D. Dubai by building the port, than trade zones and such. With today's longer range aircraft, there needs to be some O&D. Since ANC is well enough served to Asian hubs, there isn't any unmet latent demand to exploit with today's longer range aircraft.

I look at 3000nm range from ANC, the range for a NEO or MAX hub and except for some cities in North Japan, I'm just not seeing opportunities on the Asian side.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%40anc

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 10):
To have a hub you need O&D traffic to support the network. Without the O&D demand you have DAY, BNA, CVG, MEM, CLE, CMH, RDU etc etc

Exactly. The Wayport hub is non-viable with today's aircraft.

Quoting TheCheese (Reply 32):
With the population of the Anchorage Metro area being just under 300,000 people and the whole of the state totaling less than 750,000 folks, the O&D for the area is nil.

Compare that to Dubai with 2 million plus 1 million who travel in for work daily. While ANC will also have a large transient population, how much demand is there really to Asia?

Lightsaber

777STL · Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:31 pm

Quoting MtnWest1979 (Reply 15):
Clear that statement up for me. So if one was flying ATL-SEA-NRT, that must be uneconomical, since SEA is over 2000 miles from both ATL and NRT.

My point was that a hub in ANC would never work when the bulk of the population of this country lives 3,000 miles away on the right coast. A bunch of long, thin routes to the east coast(or the midwest/southern part of the US) would never be economical from such a hub.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 19):
I suppose it depends, but I'd rather just be on my way and get it over with.

Likewise. I'd rather have one long flight than two medium ones. It provides better opportunities for rest.

c680 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:13 pm

Given the number of people employed to look at route structures, it's pretty easy to say that if an ANC trans-pac hub had potential, then someone would have tried it already.

The parallel example is IcelandAir (FI) at Reykjavik (RKV). They probably have the same amount of O/D potential as ANC, but there are some differences.

1) There is political will to have a national carrier for Iceland. Not as much for the Nation of Alaska (although one could argue that it's damn close!)
2) FI still has a good size fleet of 757 - range helps vs AS 737 fleet.
3) RKV has cargo potential. ANC is already flooded with Cargo capacity.
4) Fares are key here. T-pac is already pretty competitive, so how does an ANC hub help?
5) JL, NH, and UA all have invested in the "Hub Busting" concept with 787 - makes it even harder for ANC to get up and going as a mini hub.
6) As for location, actually ANC is better positioned than RKV - a stop at ANC usually adds only about 100 NM travel between any two USA and East Asian city pair. Ask the private operators going T-Pac - lots go through ANC (and a few go to PKC if they are unlucky!)

Lexy · Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:23 pm

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 10):
Without the O&D demand you have

BNA wasn't an O&D issue partner. Just to clarify that post which was a broad brush.

a380787 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:30 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 1):
Even YVR is being more and more bypassed by trans-Pacific flights

Another reason why the west coast hubs of YVR/SEA/SFO need to open up secondary cities in order to maintain some advantage over larger midwest/east coast hubs of YYZ/ORD

AC can consider YVR-KIX/NGO/CTU/CAN/BKK/BNE/MEL with 787 ... basically things that still can't be economically operated from YYZ

GentFromAlaska · Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:04 pm

As an Alaskan I think there is some viability to the posters question. Although some 70% or ANC revenue is derived from cargo. ANC has become more popular across the last ten or so years. It is certainly the seasonal Alaska cruise ship departure airport after a four hour train ride from the port of Seward, Alaska.

I can't help but think about last years season finale of the Amazing Race reality serieswhich had the final four teams teams racing from NRT to JNU (Juneau) Alaska. The carrier was presumed to be DL.

The routing was understood to be NRT up over Aleutain Islands over ANC down to SEA or SFO where the teams changed aircraft only fly north again 2.5 hours NNW of SEA to JNU or five hours from SFO. That's a lot of unnecessary flying in that JNU is a one hour fifteen minute flight SSE or ANC. Had the DL flight stopped in ANC the teams could have easily transferred over to AS for a backdoor flight to JNU.

777STL · Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:46 pm

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 40):
The routing was understood to be NRT up over Aleutain Islands over ANC down to SEA or SFO where the teams changed aircraft only fly north again 2.5 hours NNW of SEA to JNU or five hours from SFO. That's a lot of unnecessary flying in that JNU is a one hour fifteen minute flight SSE or ANC. Had the DL flight stopped in ANC the teams could have easily transferred over to AS for a backdoor flight to JNU.

I'm sure someone will post it, but I have a feeling the PDEWs from the entire state of Alaska to NRT is in the single digits per day. Surely not enough to support service to ANC.

warreng24 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:49 pm

It could be possible if fuel costs keep rising. It costs money to carry all that fuel that you need for those longer flights across the Pacific. The ultra-long-haul flights (EWR-SIN, LAX-BKK) disappeared due to this very reason.

I wonder how much fuel burn cost would be saved by re-fueling in ANC vs doing SFO-NRT non-stop and carrying all the fuel.

ytz · Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:23 pm

Quoting 777stl (Reply 36):

My point was that a hub in ANC would never work when the bulk of the population of this country lives 3,000 miles away on the right coast. A bunch of long, thin routes to the east coast(or the midwest/southern part of the US) would never be economical from such a hub.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 35):
I look at 3000nm range from ANC, the range for a NEO or MAX hub and except for some cities in North Japan, I'm just not seeing opportunities on the Asian side.

My thinking runs along the lines of NEO/MAX to lots of smaller and medium sized cities. 787s to further centres like MIA or largers centres like NYC or YTO. And then 787s to several cities in China, Japan, and Korea. Not just the major ones like TYO or PVG. But also, places like CTU. And other regional cities which may have pax potential but not necessarily the same amount of business potential. Such as MNL.

While JFK-NRT may be possible. What about JFK-MNL? Or MIA-TYO?

Surely, by efficiently locating a hub, there are savings that would allow for better service or cheaper fares, no? Add in the choices of destinations. From an ANC hub, the choice of destinations in Northeast Asia would be far more than any lower 48 states city could provide.

Undoubtedly, a risky endeavour. But curious if it's ever been proposed before.

ytz · Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:28 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 24):
Well ANC is in the middle of nowhere and nothing much happens there. Anchorage is NOT a London or Dubai .

Dubai wasn't Dubai not all that long ago. I know. I grew up there till 1991.

jourdan747 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:03 pm

Japan Airlines flys nonstop from Japan to Fairbanks this winter as charter flights. Any idea how the loads are?

c680 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:35 pm

Quoting jourdan747 (Reply 45):
Japan Airlines flys nonstop from Japan to Fairbanks this winter as charter flights.

Ahh - the "Get Lucky under the Northern Lights" special...NOT

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/tr.../02Alaska.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But it does indicate that there is some Alaska destination tourism in winter - like Iceland.

Viscount724 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:49 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 1):
Even YVR is being more and more bypassed by trans-Pacific flights,

What are you referring to? Unless I'm overloolking someting, no other cities in Canada have nonstop service to any destinations in Asia that aren't also served nonstop from YVR.

747megatop · Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:09 am

Quoting ytz (Reply 44):
Dubai wasn't Dubai not all that long ago. I know. I grew up there till 1991.

True, but in 20 years they are something now. ANC was nothing and still nothing, and will be for the foreseeable future.

JA743J · Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:24 am

Quoting ytz (Reply 43):
My thinking runs along the lines of NEO/MAX to lots of smaller and medium sized cities. 787s to further centres like MIA or largers centres like NYC or YTO. And then 787s to several cities in China, Japan, and Korea. Not just the major ones like TYO or PVG. But also, places like CTU. And other regional cities which may have pax potential but not necessarily the same amount of business potential. Such as MNL.

I don't see this happening at all. Let's just look at the US side. Do you really think feeder flights between your "smaller and medium sized cities" and TPAC hubs are filled with TPAC traffic alone? What makes you think that those smaller cities would be able to sustain ANC flights which would have considerably longer stage length?

On the asian side, hubs on each countries such as NRT, PVG, PEK, and HKG already offers ample TPAC flights to many US destinations. So, does going KIX-ANC-JFK offer significant advantage over going ITM-NRT-JFK? You also mentioned MNL, but you can't shift the traffic going to cities with direct or non-stop service such as LAX, therefore, those flights to ANC need to survive only on connection flights to smaller markets. I don't think that would work either.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net