Airnerd wrote:

I wonder if routes like SEA and GEG got to the jet just from a product standpoint.

Could very well be. But on PDX-SEA (every 30 min all day long), I can't believe there would be any time savings or economic benefit to moving to the jet. That route is a perfect case for the fast props. I'm sure I don't have the full picture, but I still can't imagine that 4-6 spots is going to be adequate for PDX prop activity in the future. There are 14 ground loading gates on A concourse today and 5 or 6 on E that will go away with the extension planned. Seems wild they would go from ~20 prop-suitable gates to 4 or 6 while planning for the future. But then perhaps AAG is telling them something different about the future of the props than what they've said publicly.

I would hope that the Q400s are with QX for a while longer. Sure the 175s are nice, but I would imagine the economics of the Q400 are better and allow for service to airports that otherwise wouldn't be served. I'm thinking specifically of some of the 1x/day flights QX operates to BLI, PSC, STS and I'm sure others.
All of DL's flights to SEA are on jets, I haven't looked at flight times but considering how short a distance the route is I would agree there is probably no benefit to operating anything more than Q400s.
Has AAG publicly stated if the new 175s for QX are for expansion or Q400 replacement/augmentation?

PDX757 wrote:

Airnerd wrote:

I wonder if routes like SEA and GEG got to the jet just from a product standpoint.

Could very well be. But on PDX-SEA (every 30 min all day long), I can't believe there would be any time savings or economic benefit to moving to the jet. That route is a perfect case for the fast props. I'm sure I don't have the full picture, but I still can't imagine that 4-6 spots is going to be adequate for PDX prop activity in the future. There are 14 ground loading gates on A concourse today and 5 or 6 on E that will go away with the extension planned. Seems wild they would go from ~20 prop-suitable gates to 4 or 6 while planning for the future. But then perhaps AAG is telling them something different about the future of the props than what they've said publicly.

I would hope that the Q400s are with QX for a while longer. Sure the 175s are nice, but I would imagine the economics of the Q400 are better and allow for service to airports that otherwise wouldn't be served. I'm thinking specifically of some of the 1x/day flights QX operates to BLI, PSC, STS and I'm sure others.
All of DL's flights to SEA are on jets, I haven't looked at flight times but considering how short a distance the route is I would agree there is probably no benefit to operating anything more than Q400s.
Has AAG publicly stated if the new 175s for QX are for expansion or Q400 replacement/augmentation?

I was acting from a fully product based standpoint. Having new jets on the premier route vs. props just for competition sake and not economics. I imagine it would be a mix at some point as aircraft will need to be exchanged between the two hubs.

32andBelow wrote:

I was acting from a fully product based standpoint. Having new jets on the premier route vs. props just for competition sake and not economics. I imagine it would be a mix at some point as aircraft will need to be exchanged between the two hubs.

In the minds of the flying public, jet > turboprop. I'm excited at the expansion prospects that will come with the 175s. In my mind, having a market served nonstop is always a plus, regardless of equipment. That said, I've never flown on an E-jet. How are they in general? I'm thinking of the 4.5 hours from YYZ on the 190, that's quite a stretch. If there's going to be new routes at PDX to mid markets like MKE or IND I don't see them working on anything BUT a 175.

PDX757 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

I was acting from a fully product based standpoint. Having new jets on the premier route vs. props just for competition sake and not economics. I imagine it would be a mix at some point as aircraft will need to be exchanged between the two hubs.

In the minds of the flying public, jet > turboprop. I'm excited at the expansion prospects that will come with the 175s. In my mind, having a market served nonstop is always a plus, regardless of equipment. That said, I've never flown on an E-jet. How are they in general? I'm thinking of the 4.5 hours from YYZ on the 190, that's quite a stretch. If there's going to be new routes at PDX to mid markets like MKE or IND I don't see them working on anything BUT a 175.

More comfortable than a 737 IMO

Has AAG publicly stated if the new 175s for QX are for expansion or Q400 replacement/augmentation?

AS/QX ordered 30 E175s and has said they plan to retire 15 of their 52 Q400s.

I read this to mean a few things:
1. Some of the new planes may replace some/all of the Skywest E175s currently flying for AS.
2. Some of the new planes may replace existing flights on Q400s - but probably only those over 90 minutes in duration.
3. Some of the new planes will be used for expansion, new routes and seasonal fluctuations in certain 737 markets.

In any case, since AS will still have 37 Q400s in their fleet, and since PDX is their "secondary" hub after SEA, I think we can safely assume we'll continue to see props in PDX for quite some time.

Airnerd wrote:

Has AAG publicly stated if the new 175s for QX are for expansion or Q400 replacement/augmentation?

AS/QX ordered 30 E175s and has said they plan to retire 15 of their 52 Q400s.

I read this to mean a few things:
1. Some of the new planes may replace some/all of the Skywest E175s currently flying for AS.

Haven't they also added planes to OO and extended their contract recently?

32andBelow wrote:

Haven't they also added planes to OO and extended their contract recently?

Yes, but it's confusing to me because they're adding OO E175s at the same time they're retiring OO CR7s, so I'm not sure the total number of AS planes operated by OO is increasing, or if it is for how long. And then of course the OO planes will come on-line well before the full order of 30 AS E175s will all be delivered, and well before the 15 Q400s they want to retire in 2017 are replaced. So the bulk of the OO flying could be stop-gap stuff waiting for the AS E175s, but who knows. Hopefully someone here can explain it.

Airnerd wrote:

Yes, but it's confusing to me because they're adding OO E175s at the same time they're retiring OO CR7s, so I'm not sure the total number of AS planes operated by OO is increasing, or if it is for how long. And then of course the OO planes will come on-line well before the full order of 30 AS E175s will all be delivered, and well before the 15 Q400s they want to retire in 2017 are replaced. So the bulk of the OO flying could be stop-gap stuff waiting for the AS E175s, but who knows. Hopefully someone here can explain it.

Stop-gap makes sense IMO. It doesn't seem to make much sense to have OO flying when AAG has QX.

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/PDXaminer_9_2016.pdf

Here we go guys the first illustration of the redesigned CC-E extension...It's official SW will be relocating from C..............scroll down to page 3 on the link above.............

From what I've been able to gather, the OO flying isn't going anywhere, and most of the Q400s will still be around for a while. It would make sense for QX to replace Q400s with E175s on the really long routes (especially ex-SEA to compete with DL) and keep the Q400s on the shuttle/intra-OR/WA routes. I could also see AS/QX long term replace all the Q400s with E-jets for simplicity and comfort's sake, even if jets don't have much of a performance advantage on those short routes.

Personally, I love the E175s, but I also have a soft spot for the Q400s. They're fun planes to fly, and I think they're more comfortable than CR2s. Though I've never flown on one for more than an hour, and I don't think I'd want to.

Speaking of CR2s and Q400s, JZA8315 appears to be subbing in a CR2 from YYC today.
Anyone know if the YYC service Wil remain double daily through the winter? A very very small sample I took puts the flight at close to 100% LF.

lhpdx wrote:

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/PDXaminer_9_2016.pdf

Here we go guys the first illustration of the redesigned CC-E extension...It's official SW will be relocating from C..............scroll down to page 3 on the link above.............

Hey thanks for sharing that link to the current expansion proposal.
I think this makes a lot more sense than the previous proposal - particularly since WN passengers are about the least likely to be making a connection to a different airline, so sticking them down at the far end of E should work well.

I still wonder about the gates at the far end of C, which almost never seem to get used. Will that area finally get busy with AA activity? Questions also remain about A which is intentionally not addressed by the plan in the link.

32andBelow wrote:

PDX757 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

I was acting from a fully product based standpoint. Having new jets on the premier route vs. props just for competition sake and not economics. I imagine it would be a mix at some point as aircraft will need to be exchanged between the two hubs.

In the minds of the flying public, jet > turboprop. I'm excited at the expansion prospects that will come with the 175s. In my mind, having a market served nonstop is always a plus, regardless of equipment. That said, I've never flown on an E-jet. How are they in general? I'm thinking of the 4.5 hours from YYZ on the 190, that's quite a stretch. If there's going to be new routes at PDX to mid markets like MKE or IND I don't see them working on anything BUT a 175.

More comfortable than a 737 IMO

Agreed with 32. Once you fly on a 175 you will quickly realize why it's the best regional aircraft out there.

Airnerd wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/PDXaminer_9_2016.pdf

Here we go guys the first illustration of the redesigned CC-E extension...It's official SW will be relocating from C..............scroll down to page 3 on the link above.............

Hey thanks for sharing that link to the current expansion proposal.
I think this makes a lot more sense than the previous proposal - particularly since WN passengers are about the least likely to be making a connection to a different airline, so sticking them down at the far end of E should work well.

I still wonder about the gates at the far end of C, which almost never seem to get used. Will that area finally get busy with AA activity? Questions also remain about A which is intentionally not addressed by the plan in the link.

If I'm not mistaken, concourse A was a part of phase 1 of expansion as outlined in the airport master plan. I wonder if plans will be unveiled during construction on the E extension or shortly after its completion.

PDX757 wrote:

Airnerd wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/PDXaminer_9_2016.pdf

Here we go guys the first illustration of the redesigned CC-E extension...It's official SW will be relocating from C..............scroll down to page 3 on the link above.............

Hey thanks for sharing that link to the current expansion proposal.
I think this makes a lot more sense than the previous proposal - particularly since WN passengers are about the least likely to be making a connection to a different airline, so sticking them down at the far end of E should work well.

I still wonder about the gates at the far end of C, which almost never seem to get used. Will that area finally get busy with AA activity? Questions also remain about A which is intentionally not addressed by the plan in the link.

If I'm not mistaken, concourse A was a part of phase 1 of expansion as outlined in the airport master plan. I wonder if plans will be unveiled during construction on the E extension or shortly after its completion.

The current airport master plan has E and B concourses extended linearly away from the terminal, and also called for a short extension of concourse D. Eventually they project a second terminal (ticketing/baggage area etc.) being needed parallel to the existing terminal a little bit east of the current parking garage. The final arrangement would be elongated H with two long straight concourses on either side of the roadway.

In keeping with this, the next logical development would be moving the roadway and extending the current B concourse to match the E concourse on the North Side OR extending D concourse to make room for more wide-body gates. That being said; I wish they would make either E or B the international concourse so you wouldn't need to take that awkward bus ride to connect to the baggage area.

Some say jibber, some say jabber.

DBun wrote:

PDX757 wrote:

Airnerd wrote:

Hey thanks for sharing that link to the current expansion proposal.
I think this makes a lot more sense than the previous proposal - particularly since WN passengers are about the least likely to be making a connection to a different airline, so sticking them down at the far end of E should work well.

I still wonder about the gates at the far end of C, which almost never seem to get used. Will that area finally get busy with AA activity? Questions also remain about A which is intentionally not addressed by the plan in the link.

If I'm not mistaken, concourse A was a part of phase 1 of expansion as outlined in the airport master plan. I wonder if plans will be unveiled during construction on the E extension or shortly after its completion.

The current airport master plan has E and B concourses extended linearly away from the terminal, and also called for a short extension of concourse D. Eventually they project a second terminal (ticketing/baggage area etc.) being needed parallel to the existing terminal a little bit east of the current parking garage. The final arrangement would be elongated H with two long straight concourses on either side of the roadway.






In keeping with this, the next logical development would be moving the roadway and extending the current B concourse to match the E concourse on the North Side OR extending D concourse to make room for more wide-body gates. That being said; I wish they would make either E or B the international concourse so you wouldn't need to take that awkward bus ride to connect to the baggage area.

There will be no realignment of Airport Way or of the South concourses to make a "H" shape for the terminal. The Port is adding a new parking garage where the current rental car refueling and car wash area is located. Because of this there can be no actual straitening of Concourse "A". The Port still plans on shutting down most of A after the terminal balancing project is complete.

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/July ... n-Comb.pdf

PDXPOL wrote:

DBun wrote:

PDX757 wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, concourse A was a part of phase 1 of expansion as outlined in the airport master plan. I wonder if plans will be unveiled during construction on the E extension or shortly after its completion.

The current airport master plan has E and B concourses extended linearly away from the terminal, and also called for a short extension of concourse D. Eventually they project a second terminal (ticketing/baggage area etc.) being needed parallel to the existing terminal a little bit east of the current parking garage. The final arrangement would be elongated H with two long straight concourses on either side of the roadway.






In keeping with this, the next logical development would be moving the roadway and extending the current B concourse to match the E concourse on the North Side OR extending D concourse to make room for more wide-body gates. That being said; I wish they would make either E or B the international concourse so you wouldn't need to take that awkward bus ride to connect to the baggage area.

There will be no realignment of Airport Way or of the South concourses to make a "H" shape for the terminal. The Port is adding a new parking garage where the current rental car refueling and car wash area is located. Because of this there can be no actual straitening of Concourse "A". The Port still plans on shutting down most of A after the terminal balancing project is complete.

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/July ... n-Comb.pdf

I didn't realize this was where the new parking garage was going. I was just referencing the most recent airport masterplan (see page 3 for the diagram):http://www.pdxairportfutures.com/Documents/2010_PDX_Mstr_Pln_Exctv_Smry.pdf

clearly, things change, and the plan can evolve. I was just describing what they were previously saying would be the long-term concept.

The Port is changing rapidly, I am not sure how this will effect the PDX Master Plan. There is an entire redevelopment plan for the North side of the airport along the GA area. As we all see Atlantic is moving, but there is talk about tearing down the old Gate Gourmet and other building as well. A new interchange for Airport Way and 82nd. I think we are sure to see many years of constant construction going on. Unless the aviation market tanks of course.

PDXPOL wrote:

The Port is changing rapidly, I am not sure how this will effect the PDX Master Plan. There is an entire redevelopment plan for the North side of the airport along the GA area. As we all see Atlantic is moving, but there is talk about tearing down the old Gate Gourmet and other building as well. A new interchange for Airport Way and 82nd. I think we are sure to see many years of constant construction going on. Unless the aviation market tanks of course.

Yes, I was surprised to see the location of the new garage as it will preclude building according to the ultimate terminal concept included in the 2010 Master Plan. While the garage guarantees that A will remain "bent", and unable to service large aircraft, it also means that there will never be room to extend the two separate taxiways to the east end of the south runway. Seems a little short-sighted to me, but I'm assuming they weighed the pros and cons and came up with this as the best solution. It signals a major departure from the Master Plan concept however, so I'd be very interested to know what the "ultimate" terminal concept looks like after construction of a garage they presumably will want to keep into the distant future.

There will be no realignment of Airport Way or of the South concourses to make a "H" shape for the terminal. The Port is adding a new parking garage where the current rental car refueling and car wash area is located. Because of this there can be no actual straitening of Concourse "A". The Port still plans on shutting down most of A after the terminal balancing project is complete.

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/July ... n-Comb.pdf[/quote]

Please don't tell me this new parking garage is going to ruin the view of 28L from the top deck of the current garage!?! They already ruined the view of Mt. Hood and approach to 28R with the POP HQ building. Disappointing IMO.

The parking garage is tiered. So the first floor is full size of the foot print, then as each level goes up it gets smaller and smaller, it looks like a set of stairs. This was required by the FAA tower so it kept its visibility to the taxiway. However from standing on the 7th floor I don't know what the view will be like completely.

PDXPOL wrote:

The parking garage is tiered. So the first floor is full size of the foot print, then as each level goes up it gets smaller and smaller, it looks like a set of stairs. This was required by the FAA tower so it kept its visibility to the taxiway. However from standing on the 7th floor I don't know what the view will be like completely.

If the new garage isn't for long term parking, we may end up with a better view of the south side for spotting from it. But then you can't run over to the north side unless the garages are connected. Hope they don't build this for a long time...like after our new 6 gate extension on concourse E.

So I talked to a friend of mine at Hawaiian. He said that HA does in fact plan on returning OGG from PDX once they receive their A321's. I tried to get more and all he said was is looks like it will be with one of the first 6 aircraft. I am not sure what he meant as I dont know the aircraft schedule for HA. I have no way of verifying his info and with all the speculation on Anet who knows. He did mention that HA was happy with their load factors to OGG (75-80%) but with fuel prices and a 767 for a 5hr+ flight was a loss. If someone knows their A321 receiving schedule that would be great. I am guessing early 2018. Maybe Alaska's red eye is not really that good.

Red eyes suck. Best way to ruin a good vacation.

According to Wikipedia, the first of 16 arrive in 2017 continuing into 2020.

PDXPOL wrote:

So I talked to a friend of mine at Hawaiian. He said that HA does in fact plan on returning OGG from PDX once they receive their A321's. I tried to get more and all he said was is looks like it will be with one of the first 6 aircraft. I am not sure what he meant as I dont know the aircraft schedule for HA. I have no way of verifying his info and with all the speculation on Anet who knows. He did mention that HA was happy with their load factors to OGG (75-80%) but with fuel prices and a 767 for a 5hr+ flight was a loss. If someone knows their A321 receiving schedule that would be great. I am guessing early 2018. Maybe Alaska's red eye is not really that good.

I was very surprised when HA pulled out of PDX-OGG. They basically gave all the business to AS. I remember on Hawaiian's Facebook page hundreds of comments demanding that HA reinstate the PDX-OGG flights. PDX-OGG on A321s should work out great. Perhaps we will also see PDX-LIH/KOA on the A321s.

Remember: order of 30 Embraer 175's with option of 33 more.

New airline could mean new destinations

http://www.mycolumbiabasin.com/2016/08/ ... tinations/

dc10lover wrote:

New airline could mean new destinations

http://www.mycolumbiabasin.com/2016/08/ ... tinations/

Anyword on TSA? With the new legislation do they, TSA, have to provide screening if requested. That was one of the downfalls. Plus the reason Penair was not interested. With that many flights a week I certainly think TSA is needed as well as other airport options they talk about. Its really a must have.

First of all i have bookmarked this thread. It also deals with Seattle & Washington State.

Boutique Air will not need TSA in Pendleton, Oregon since they will be using the Pilatis PC - 12.

http://www.mailtribune.com/news/2016091 ... cord-month

MFR keeps booming...

dc10lover wrote:

First of all i have bookmarked this thread. It also deals with Seattle & Washington State.

Boutique Air will not need TSA in Pendleton, Oregon since they will be using the Pilatis PC - 12.

It depends on if they can get the TSA there when it's not needed at PDT & if there is a big enough hassle with doing security once these passengers arrive at PDX. Considering SeaPort has been doing it for years now, I expect it's not that difficult at all.

It will be interesting to see how many pax per month get pulled over to LMT starting next month.

32andBelow wrote:

It will be interesting to see how many pax per month get pulled over to LMT starting next month.

Well, with 60 seats in and out a day, and load factors of around 50% typical, probably not enough for MFR to notice.

As of 1800 this evening, seaport has been grounded and is being forced into chapter 7 bankruptcy, looks like that's all she wrote for seaport
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/09/seaport_airlines_to_be_liquida.html#incart_2box

PDX757 wrote:

As of 1800 this evening, seaport has been grounded and is being forced into chapter 7 bankruptcy, looks like that's all she wrote for seaport
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/09/seaport_airlines_to_be_liquida.html#incart_2box

For those of you who are employees, I am sorry the loss of your employment, I hope you find another opportunity soon. The airline itself was not an asset to very many communities & unfortunately those who worked the hardest, will suffer the most.

It's sad but they dug their own grave. Botique Air will be so much better.

I so hope Botique Air will serve pdx - eat non - stop when they serve pdx - pdt.

PDX757 wrote:

As of 1800 this evening, seaport has been grounded and is being forced into chapter 7 bankruptcy, looks like that's all she wrote for seaport
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/09/seaport_airlines_to_be_liquida.html#incart_2box

Explains why the last flight was met by the police last night. I was so damn busy out there that i didnt have the chance to see what was going on.

My condolences to the standard employees affected, but good riddance to the piss-poor management.

I doubt Botique will stick around, if the DOT strips PDT of it's EAS subsidy , due to lack of passengers?

PDX August 2016 Passenger statistics are out.

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/Aug2016webstats.pdf

Overall passenger numbers are up 6.4% for August 2016 vs. August 2015 to 1,822,575. Year to date passenger numbers are up 8.8%!
International passenger numbers are up a whopping 16.5%.

ANA787 wrote:

PDX August 2016 Passenger statistics are out.

http://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/Aug2016webstats.pdf

Overall passenger numbers are up 6.4% for August 2016 vs. August 2015 to 1,822,575. Year to date passenger numbers are up 8.8%!
International passenger numbers are up a whopping 16.5%.

Should top 18 million for the calendar year. Still too many people having to connect in SFO, LAX, DEN to too many should-be nonstop destinations. And Alaska can't do it all.

jbpdx wrote:

Should top 18 million for the calendar year. Still too many people having to connect in SFO, LAX, DEN to too many should-be nonstop destinations. And Alaska can't do it all.

I agree PDX will easily top 18 million at this rate. I agree with too many connections as well. Where do you think PDX needs nonstops to?

I think MIA is high on the list of needed nonstops, would make sense for AA to begin this route. The 175s should allow for more cities to get nonstop service that wouldn't be able to see it with a 738 or even 73G.
I think it would behoove AAG to strongly consider adding unserved markets, especially since they would likely have many of those markets to themselves.
I'm sure a lot of the recent adds at SEA would be successful from PDX as well.

ANA787 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

Should top 18 million for the calendar year. Still too many people having to connect in SFO, LAX, DEN to too many should-be nonstop destinations. And Alaska can't do it all.

I agree PDX will easily top 18 million at this rate. I agree with too many connections as well. Where do you think PDX needs nonstops to?

For me a lot of the problem isn't that there aren't non-stops to the destinations I want, but that there are only a handful of non-stops and all the best times involve connections. So I think increasing the number of non-stops on key routes is probably more important than adding new destinations with only one or two non-stops.

PDX757 wrote:

I think MIA is high on the list of needed nonstops, would make sense for AA to begin this route. }
I think it would behoove AAG to strongly consider adding unserved markets, especially since they would likely have many of those markets to themselves.
.

As so many in here push MIA to/from everywhere, you have to know if an airline would fill the flight. Are there really that many people from Portland going to Miami?
True of any unserved market, that fact alone is no guarantee of financial success. There could be a reason nobody else is flying the route either. Bragging rights don't make the bean counters happy.

Wingtips56 wrote:

PDX757 wrote:

I think MIA is high on the list of needed nonstops, would make sense for AA to begin this route. }
I think it would behoove AAG to strongly consider adding unserved markets, especially since they would likely have many of those markets to themselves.
.

As so many in here push MIA to/from everywhere, you have to know if an airline would fill the flight. Are there really that many people from Portland going to Miami?
True of any unserved market, that fact alone is no guarantee of financial success. There could be a reason nobody else is flying the route either. Bragging rights don't make the bean counters happy.

MIA would be great because of the connection opportunities on AA to the Caribbean and Latin America. There are far more connecting opportunities from MIA than from DFW.

Airnerd wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

PDX757 wrote:

I think MIA is high on the list of needed nonstops, would make sense for AA to begin this route. }
I think it would behoove AAG to strongly consider adding unserved markets, especially since they would likely have many of those markets to themselves.
.

As so many in here push MIA to/from everywhere, you have to know if an airline would fill the flight. Are there really that many people from Portland going to Miami?
True of any unserved market, that fact alone is no guarantee of financial success. There could be a reason nobody else is flying the route either. Bragging rights don't make the bean counters happy.

MIA would be great because of the connection opportunities on AA to the Caribbean and Latin America. There are far more connecting opportunities from MIA than from DFW.

So does anyone know where the better numbers would fall? AS to FLL for the cruise traffic, or AA to MIA for Carribbean/SA connections? Maybe seasonal for both depending on when these seasons are at their peak?

Due to the fact that there are several topics being discussed in this thread moderators decided to lock it and to open a new thread. Please continue your discussion and to post your updates there.

Link to new thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1343661