Flights begin 18 February, 2016. 1 daily round-trip operated by Sky West.

Press release:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alaska...ounces-daily-flying-120000995.html

Oh wow! They had hinted at significant expansion with the 175s, but this is really a big add.

I'm visiting STL and AUS this year just because of the new nonstop, so, now, a few more cities to check out once they come online.

The Omaha timing is a little odd, but, probably the most margin route of the three additions, so taking advantage of one last rotation of a plane during the day. Either way, cool.

Good work Alaska!

[Edited 2015-07-30 05:55:25]

[Edited 2015-07-30 05:55:51]

PDX-MSP seemed like just a matter of time, PDX-MCI seems like it's worth a shot, but PDX-OMA? I was surprised when AS launched SEA-OMA with a CR7 a few years ago...definitely didn't see PDX-OMA coming! It'll be interesting to see what AS decides to do with the E-175s coming online with OO. Great gets for PDX--wouldn't be surprised to see PDX-MSP going mainline by 2017.

[Edited 2015-07-30 05:59:07]

It seems like MSP has been real strong for them.

Quoting gunsontheroof (Reply 2): I was surprised when AS launched SEA-OMA with a CR7 a few years ago...definitely didn't see PDX-OMA coming!

Neither did I, especially considering there is only seasonal OMA-LAX service and no OMA-Bay Area service at all. Are there any unique ties to the PNW from OMA?

Regardless, I am glad to see AS continuing to diversify its PDX network.

I bet mainland Alaska and Horizon pilots are not happy

Ah, too bad no PDX-SAT. Too far for the E175 and not enough demand - most likely - for a B737.

Not exactly high-season in PDX for brand new mid-haul nonstops; curious to see such adds in February. I guess the PDX market must be less seasonal than it was.

bb

Wonder when PDX-ATL and PDX-EWR will start.

on another note, AS surely is marketing heavy in SLC They have increased billboards, saw them on the jumbotron at the Real Soccer game,
they are giving away trips on most radio stations. They are on the buses and the light rail trains., and even had a float in the Mormon Parade on the 24th of July

It's about time AS jumped into the PDX-MSP market. All these adds will do well with e175s.

Hopefully PDX-DEN/EWR/ATL/ABQ are right around the corner.

What a wonderful surprise to awakened to!! Nice to see Alaska growing commitment to their PDX hub........

I'm expecting a PDX-MKE flight hopefully soon too, and the MKE-SEA upgauged to mainline. It seems that flight is doing very well so far. Yes I know it's peak summer, and I have no idea what the yields are like, but it looks full pretty much every day (no empty seats on my SEA-MKE flight on July 09).

Quoting modernart (Reply 7): Ah, too bad no PDX-SAT. Too far for the E175 and not enough demand - most likely - for a B737.

An E175 should be able to fly PDX-SAT, it's only 6 miles longer than PDX-STL and slightly shorter than some E175 routes OO operates for other carriers (UA's SFO-STL comes to mind).

Interesting - the Bay Area has zero nonstops to OMA.

I think this means a new direction from the planning team with regard to PDX thanks to the new leadership. Yes, they have added here and there from PDX, but overall it hasn't been expanding. I think this may be the diversification strategy against DL as opposed to a burn the deck chairs strategy that it seemed they were pursuing.

Quoting enilria (Reply 15): I think this means a new direction from the planning team with regard to PDX thanks to the new leadership.

I most definitely agree that route & network planning (system wide!) has changed big-time since Kirby took the reigns at the beginning of the year.

We'll have to wait a while to see if the new overall strategies are successful or not.

bb

Yeah its good to see PDX get some love, SLC they keep sitting there waiting for more gate space. AS seems to be rolling pretty well up in SEA too, Delta doesnt seem to be killing it in SEA, but they also seem hell bent on letting it slowly build and staying positive.

Quoting psa1011 (Reply 14): Interesting - the Bay Area has zero nonstops to OMA.

UA served SFO-OMA with a 727 in the 1970. EA served SEA/PDX-OMA with 727s also. But yes it is interesting that UA doesn't now do SFO-OMA.

i wonder if WN retains PDX -MCI..they have served that route for years now , ( and not seasonally)

It would be nice to see AS launch MSP-SLC (that would really sock it to Delta).

Wonder if this will force PDX-MSP fares down.

Example:
PDX-MSP DL nonstop feb 23-25 889$ rt
PDX-MSP AS nonstop feb 23-25 277$ rt

Going to piss DL off.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 6): I bet mainland Alaska and Horizon pilots are not happy

I bet mainline Alaska pilots could care less. They are more than enough work and are happy. Now Horizon pilots....

Does this mean that Alaska serious about hubbing at Portland?

Quoting lhpdx (Reply 23): Does this mean that Alaska serious about hubbing at Portland?

Alaska has been hubbing at Portland this whole time.

Sometimes I find myself wondering how they come up with these new routes...throwing darts at a map of the USA?

I wish them well...it is obvious that there is some risk involved, as they aren't throwing mainline aircraft at the routes (yet). I hope some of the darts stick well  

Quoting psa1011 (Reply 14): Interesting - the Bay Area has zero nonstops to OMA.

Isn't Southwest starting OMA-OAK? Or was that CMH-OAK that I am thinking of?

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 25): I hope some of the darts stick well

How many new AS routes have been failures and not lasted long? Seems like very few. I think they do more homework than throwing darts.

Short lived routes that come to mind are:

SMF-GDL
PDX-ATL
PDX-MCO
SJC-AUS
SEA-YXS
SFO-CUN

That's a pretty small percentage of AS's expansion.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 26): Isn't Southwest starting OMA-OAK? Or was that CMH-OAK that I am thinking of?

WN is starting CMH-OAK

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 4): either did I, especially considering there is only seasonal OMA-LAX service and no OMA-Bay Area service at all

Dont forget though, G4 recently started OMA-OAK, so OMA does have bay area service, although summer seasonal

Probably a long shot, but with the success they've had at OMA, what are the chances AS would start SEA-DSM? I'm sure either the CR7 or E175 have the legs to make that work.

DSM airport recently announced an program offering $250,000 in incentives to entice airlines to begin nonstop flights to cities not already offered from DSM.

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 28): Dont forget though, G4 recently started OMA-OAK, so OMA does have bay area service, although summer seasonal

Probably not the best comparison, as I think G4 is after more of the leisure traveler who doesn't mind redeyes. Not to mention that it sounds like they're about to be in hot water with the FAA really soon...

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 18): EA served SEA/PDX-OMA with 727s also.

One round robin was on an L-1011 OMA-PDX-SEA-OMA or v.v.

Quoting RJNUT (Reply 19): i wonder if WN retains PDX -MCI..they have served that route for years now , ( and not seasonally)

PDX-MCI has worked well for WN because this was their first beyond DEN or SLC flighjt from PDX & offers many connections East, one of the only ways to get East on WN easily. I too wonder if WN will retain the flight or not, I understand the plane is almost always full.

Quoting lhpdx (Reply 23): Does this mean that Alaska serious about hubbing at Portland?

They have been serious about hubbing here for decades, just not on the level of SEA, but that's to be expected considering the catchment area sizes.

As I had speculated in the Oregon thread that we should all have expected PDX-OMA, it has been a while since I had heard about that add & MSP, but I hadn't heard about MCI.

I just knew those E-175's & PDX would be a great match for AS.

Quoting irishayes (Reply 20): It would be nice to see AS launch MSP-SLC (that would really sock it to Delta).

oh yeah that would be a shot across the bow, but i think they dont want to really start a war. All the SLC routes they started were strong AS cities. That would be more of a suicide mission. AS results seem to show they are certainly holding their own in SEA, and DL SEA operation is still a non-rev heaven to connect thru, but they dont seem to mind they seem to willing to grow those markets.

Quoting enilria (Reply 15): burn the deck chairs strategy

  

More like, "Add flights now we'd planned on doing later so we tie up our gates and some others in the process" instead if you ask me. Just my $0.02 worth.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 32): AS results seem to show they are certainly holding their own in SEA, and DL SEA operation is still a non-rev heaven to connect thru

AS held a market share in SEA of 52% prior to DL's huge growth.

Today it still stands at 52%. DL's growth has come entirely at the expense of other carriers at SEA.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 32): oh yeah that would be a shot across the bow, but i think they dont want to really start a war.

If what's going on between AS and DL isn't a war, I don't know what is. Just because it's centered on SEA doesn't mean they'll be buddies elsewhere. With every single route DL starting from SEA being an overlap of an existing AS route, I can't think of anything better than AS starting a DL hub-hub route.

Technically AS already is, with SEA-MSP and SEA-SLC.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 34): Technically AS already is, with SEA-MSP and SEA-SLC.

Those routes all involve SEA. They are in a Fight over seattle with Delta they dont want to start an all out War. It could get a whole less messier and uglier i dont think thats a direction AS is trying not to go here. They can fight and defend against delta when the flights involve one of strong cities but starting SLC-MSP sounds like a suicide mission and a money burner. Delta has the FFs on both ends and can flood the market and make AS burn money. Makes no sense for AS to start a route like that.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 35): They are in a Fight over seattle with Delta they dont want to start an all out War.

An all-out war isn't what AS wants either, IMHO. The results seen by both DL and AS clearly indicate they're capable of co-existing in SEA nicely so far.

Quoting ana787 (Reply 21): Wonder if this will force PDX-MSP fares down. Example: PDX-MSP DL nonstop feb 23-25 889$ rt PDX-MSP AS nonstop feb 23-25 277$ rt Going to piss DL off.

No it won't. Fares won't change much. Alaska has their customer base in PDX - and Delta has their base which is more connect through MSP.

There's this massive misconception that DL is undercutting AS in SEA and generally speaking that is incorrect. This will be the case in PDX as well. Plus on a E75, you don't have a lot of room for rock bottom fares.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 8): Not exactly high-season in PDX for brand new mid-haul nonstops; curious to see such adds in February. I guess the PDX market must be less seasonal than it was.

But it is the time that the CR7's get traded in for the EMB-175's for a total of 13 IIRC, flown by OO for AS.

Quoting ridgid727 (Reply 9): Wonder when PDX-ATL and PDX-EWR will start.

PDX-ATL ended just a couple years ago, I doubt that's happening again anytime soon. PDX-EWR makes sense to me, I personally dislike having to change in SEA for any reason.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 27): PDX-ATL PDX-MCO

Both Trans-con non-stops with mainline aircraft. IMHO the MCO flight may have stayed had they run it as a morning departure from PDX with a lqte afternoon return from MCO & not a red-eye East & an early morning return.

Quoting dbo861 (Reply 29): Probably a long shot, but with the success they've had at OMA, what are the chances AS would start SEA-DSM? I'm sure either the CR7 or E175 have the legs to make that work.

The CR7's are going away soon, the EMB-175 is perfect for the Portland market & the cities that AS is connecting to PDX. As expected the EMB-175's will be filling in all CR7 routes & allowing AS to connect some dots on the map to PDX.

Quoting n7371f (Reply 37): There's this massive misconception that DL is undercutting AS in SEA and generally speaking that is incorrect. This will be the case in PDX as well. Plus on a E75, you don't have a lot of room for rock bottom fares.

On what routes NOT involving a delta hub does Delta command a fare average premium over AS from SEA?

[Edited 2015-07-30 21:45:54]

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 27): Quoting KELPkid (Reply 25): I hope some of the darts stick well How many new AS routes have been failures and not lasted long? Seems like very few. I think they do more homework than throwing darts. Short lived routes that come to mind are: SMF-GDL PDX-ATL PDX-MCO SJC-AUS SEA-YXS SFO-CUN That's a pretty small percentage of AS's expansion.

SEA-LGB.......and PDX-LGB if they ever flew that route.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 22): I bet mainline Alaska pilots could care less. They are more than enough work and are happy.

Couldn't care less! And are you sure? This looks like long distance routes that could eventually replace some mainland AS routes like the legacies have done with their regional partners flying.

Quoting ericm2031 (Reply 40): SEA-LGB.......and PDX-LGB if they ever flew that route.

Yes, AS and OO have both flown PDX-LGB. SEA-LGB lasted for a long time. I was not intending to list every route that AS has ever discontinued. I was mentioning that a relatively small percentage of AS's new routes have failed. That was in response to a comment that these new PDX routes are from a "dartboard".

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 41): Couldn't care less! And are you sure? This looks like long distance routes that could eventually replace some mainland AS routes like the legacies have done with their regional partners flying.

Except that Alaska has some 70+ airplanes on the books so growth is happening at AS, regardless. AS isn't going to fly a 737 from SEA to OMA or SEA to OKC because the market really can't support it. They also aren't going to fly a 737 from PDX to OMA or PDX to MCI. By starting these routes with an E175 it's possible that they can grow them and eventually move a 737 onto them. In the meantime, there's no lack of growth, current or projected, for the mainline Pilots.

[Edited 2015-07-30 22:43:55]

Quoting ASFlyer (Reply 43): AS isn't going to fly a 737 from SEA to OMA

Are you sure about this? Even currently the SEA-OMA route enjoys very high 90's % LF's, there was a real reason that PDX-OMA was added as the EMB-175, it's perfect for the route.

I'm not saying that AS will just jump to the 738 or even 73G for OMA, but I'd expect that if two routes get upgraded to mainline by next summer & that's going to be SEA-OMA & SEA-MKE.

Quoting ASFlyer (Reply 43): In the meantime, there's no lack of growth, current or projected, for the mainline Pilots.

If the current speculation/discussions among my AS employee friends is correct, you are spot on with this statement. AS is going to see an unprecedented growth in the next 3-5 years & SEA adds are only part of the puzzle.

IMHO, AS want's to have a recognized enough brand on the left coast that just about anyone in just about every large catchment area out here will think of AS or QX for their Domestic, Mexico, Alaska, Canada or Hawaii travels.

AS has California covered & the entire left coast, it's got a decent PNW to the rest of the country route map & with their recent adds to Costa Rica & others from LAX is securing them as a player in So Cal still.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 44): Are you sure about this? Even currently the SEA-OMA route enjoys very high 90's % LF's, there was a real reason that PDX-OMA was added as the EMB-175, it's perfect for the route.

That's a 90% LF on a CR7 flying 1x daily. Not exactly a green light for AS to more than double the capacity on the route by going mainline on SEA-OMA. Frankly, I'm amazed they threw the E-175 at PDX-OMA...I'd have expected a CR7 with an E-175 taking over the SEA route if it's performing that well. I can't see a 737 running either route at a profit in the near future.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 41): Couldn't care less! And are you sure? This looks like long distance routes that could eventually replace some mainland AS routes like the legacies have done with their regional partners flying.

AS pilots aren't going to be hard up for work on their bread/butter routes at the expense of Skywest. Their west coast routes support a great deal of capacity/frequency from SEA/PDX and the long transcons (which I understand also do quite well) aren't going to be flown with OO metal any time soon. If anything, the better performing OO E-175/CR7 routes are going to go mainline as demand warrants, but I doubt we'll be seeing that happen for some time. Routes like SEA-OKC/MKE/OMA and PDX-MCI/OMA are perfect for contract flying and wouldn't exist without it. As I said before, I suspect we'll see PDX-MSP going mainline in relatively short order.

Quoting gunsontheroof (Reply 45): If anything, the better performing OO E-175/CR7 routes are going to go mainline as demand warrants, but I doubt we'll be seeing that happen for some time.

And there's an ongoing, robust discussion over not if, but when, the E-175 comes to QX.

With all these new flights coming to PDX, Alaska will have to lease half the D concourse gates along with the E concourse gates to fit their schedule. I see them using D2-D10 on the south side and E1-E-4 for the E-175 and up flights.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 46): And there's an ongoing, robust discussion over not if, but when, the E-175 comes to QX.

Which apparently does not include any AS/QX upper management and as such is a pipe dream.

Look, one of the more ambitious and as its proved, brilliant moves in aviation, was for QX to deal with the fact that they'd chosen an aircraft that was in no small way, a maintenance nightmare for every other airline in the world and made it work. And they did that only by making it the sole aircraft they operate and learning absolutely everything about it. At present, Horizon is the one operation that can make money with the Q400 - they know it better than its manufacturer and they have its operations down to a science.

Only QX could have made that aircraft work for United - and I'm pretty sure that United asked and was laughed out of the building when United told them what they wanted to pay. Now, in order to be absolutely sure that United won't have to compete against the Q400 anywhere but the PNW, that fleet is being sold to European operators.

I get the shiny jet alure... really. That said, the exec suite is quite right - adding a whole new fleet is pricey - and it really does appear that the E175 may well be able to kill a regional, (Mesa's costs to add that type have so jeopardized their other flying that they may lose everything... and have sacrificed the reliability of the CRJ900 fleet, etc.) Too, staffing multiple types, and keeping the maintenance spares, parts, etc adds a level of distraction that QX quite wisely chose not handicap itself with several years ago. That decision has left QX highly focused, profitable, and exceedingly smooth at what it does. I would be loath to see it lose that, and I just don't see anyone in the real leadership of that airline rethinking it. I don't.

For better or for worse, SkyWest has the E175 for multiple carriers, and so has a much better reason to keep it and fly the small fleet that Alaska requires... it can spread the costs of carrying that type over a much larger fleet, multiple contracts and a better support system for it. Which was exactly the argument for giving SkyWest the CRJ700s in the first place. And in fact, if it is now possible for Alaska Air Group to sell the remaining 700s to SkyWest for use on other contracts, there's even greater reason to keep using SkyWest for small regional jet lift... a partner that will take the aircraft and find new uses when Alaska no longer needs them.