One thing to note about the noise - the new Boeing widebodies that routinely fly out of Paine are very quiet - especially with their light loads. I'm guessing that the Alaska 737's and (possibly) Allegiant MD-80's that will be coming will be a bit noisier.

Although the Dreamlifters and AN-124's that come in and out do cause quite a racket.

Rhodylee wrote:

One thing to note about the noise - the new Boeing widebodies that routinely fly out of Paine are very quiet - especially with their light loads. I'm guessing that the Alaska 737's and (possibly) Allegiant MD-80's that will be coming will be a bit noisier.

Although the Dreamlifters and AN-124's that come in and out do cause quite a racket.

As someone who lives in the flight path of a US airport that gets the most 747-8 every day and a boat load of AS737 Snd q400 this is totally false.

32andBelow wrote:

Rhodylee wrote:

One thing to note about the noise - the new Boeing widebodies that routinely fly out of Paine are very quiet - especially with their light loads. I'm guessing that the Alaska 737's and (possibly) Allegiant MD-80's that will be coming will be a bit noisier.

Although the Dreamlifters and AN-124's that come in and out do cause quite a racket.

As someone who lives in the flight path of a US airport that gets the most 747-8 every day and a boat load of AS737 Snd q400 this is totally false.

While in isolation they are still loud, compared to a 744 taking off, the 748 is extremely quiet. Even during taxi I confidently say a 748 is more quiet than a 737 or Airbus. And I work in very, very close proximity to them.
However, Paine is also churning out 777s and 767s which to this point are not quiet.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

SLCUT2777 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

You already overfly the great scene at Boeing Field into SEA!

If this is allowed, why not now allow WN to have a similar exclusive deal at BFI as they proposed 12 years ago and were promptly shot down by King County and the Port Authority?

Wasn't that because Alaska demanded to be allowed to move there as well, thus creating something that would have been too much to handle?

That is correct. As this article makes it seem, King County was about to approve WN's proposal at BFI until AS demanded equal access which would have been to costly and caused too much strain on the surrounding area with traffic and noise:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ ... 184887.php

This will help somewhat but will not make a dent reducing traffic at Sea - Tac. Airports do not like competition let alone airlines.

It was reported on KOMO News (local news to the Puget Sound area) that the city of Mukilteo still has a chance to block this whole deal...although slim. Also, the number of flights is capped at 21.

dc10lover wrote:

This will help somewhat but will not make a dent reducing traffic at Sea - Tac. Airports do not like competition let alone airlines.

Hypothetically, every little bit counts. Realistically, we're talking about around 1% of SeaTac's traffic. The only people who will notice will be those departing from PAE who didn't get stuck in the heavy traffic both at SeaTac and on the way to SeaTac.

I could see PAE eventually taking upwards 10% of the traffic. SeaTac will not miss this. Increasingly public entities are looking at regional solutions. Seattle Tacoma ports merged in part last year.

It is also interesting SeaTac Light Rail's northern extension is going to PAE. It may involve a car change, but I don't think so.

jbs2886 wrote:

Maybe SeaTac won't but the biggest issue is going to be Alaska competing against itself. If its higher fares, a lot will still go down to SeaTac. If its lower fares, people from Seattle will go to PAE. I'm sure Alaska can pull it off, but it will be difficult not to take a hit on your own margin.

I think they're actually competing against Delta depending on the routes they choose (SFO, LAX, ORD, LAS, Orlando, Orange County, Hawaii).

[twoid][/twoid]

NameOmitted wrote:

Pardon the slight digression (this is not worth a new thread), but is there any news about a possible ANC-MSP flight now that Delta is no longer a partner?

ANC-MSP exists because of the DL and SY hubs in MSP. There's not enough O&D incentive for AS to dive in, especially when there are already 4-5 flights per day in summer between DL and SY. DL doesn't even keep that flight daily in winter anymore.

A more likely eventual possibility, IMO, is ANC-DFW.

Chugach wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

NameOmitted wrote:

Pardon the slight digression (this is not worth a new thread), but is there any news about a possible ANC-MSP flight now that Delta is no longer a partner?

ANC-MSP exists because of the DL and SY hubs in MSP. There's not enough O&D incentive for AS to dive in, especially when there are already 4-5 flights per day in summer between DL and SY. DL doesn't even keep that flight daily in winter anymore.

A more likely eventual possibility, IMO, is ANC-DFW.

That's over 3000 miles dude. ANC SFO is probably going to be next. AA does it with a 757.

32andBelow wrote:

Chugach wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

NameOmitted wrote:

Pardon the slight digression (this is not worth a new thread), but is there any news about a possible ANC-MSP flight now that Delta is no longer a partner?

ANC-MSP exists because of the DL and SY hubs in MSP. There's not enough O&D incentive for AS to dive in, especially when there are already 4-5 flights per day in summer between DL and SY. DL doesn't even keep that flight daily in winter anymore.

A more likely eventual possibility, IMO, is ANC-DFW.

That's over 3000 miles dude. ANC SFO is probably going to be next. AA does it with a 757.

So? CO used to do IAH-ANC on a 738. ANC-Hawaii is 2800 miles, and that's with ETOPS fuel requirements. Once AS has the MAX it should easily be within their capabilities.

Agree on ANC-SFO, though.

Chugach wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Chugach wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

ANC-MSP exists because of the DL and SY hubs in MSP. There's not enough O&D incentive for AS to dive in, especially when there are already 4-5 flights per day in summer between DL and SY. DL doesn't even keep that flight daily in winter anymore.

A more likely eventual possibility, IMO, is ANC-DFW.

That's over 3000 miles dude. ANC SFO is probably going to be next. AA does it with a 757.

So? CO used to do IAH-ANC on a 738. ANC-Hawaii is 2800 miles, and that's with ETOPS fuel requirements. Once AS has the MAX it should easily be within their capabilities.

Agree on ANC-SFO, though.

ANC ORD is there longest route at 2800 miles and it comes in so light they have had to divert to elmendorf AFB for fuel after 1 missed approach in ANC. I think AA would do it on a 737 if they could.

HPRamper wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Rhodylee wrote:

One thing to note about the noise - the new Boeing widebodies that routinely fly out of Paine are very quiet - especially with their light loads. I'm guessing that the Alaska 737's and (possibly) Allegiant MD-80's that will be coming will be a bit noisier.

Although the Dreamlifters and AN-124's that come in and out do cause quite a racket.

As someone who lives in the flight path of a US airport that gets the most 747-8 every day and a boat load of AS737 Snd q400 this is totally false.

While in isolation they are still loud, compared to a 744 taking off, the 748 is extremely quiet. Even during taxi I confidently say a 748 is more quiet than a 737 or Airbus. And I work in very, very close proximity to them.
However, Paine is also churning out 777s and 767s which to this point are not quiet.

The 767 and the 737 are probably the loudest planes still in meaningful production. The CFM56-7B is quite loud by today's stanadards compared to even the CFM56-5A/5B thanks to its tiny fan which makes it loud on takeoff and loud on arrival and 767s use older engines and are generally loud on takeoff especially when equipped with CF6 engines. The 748 is most definetly quieter than either of those, the 787 is even quieter, and the 777 makes a decent amount of noise, but it's not bad. The E175s won't be too bad, but even it's CF34s are a little louder than one might expect. It shouldn't be too much of an issue at PAE as they already have planes that make some noise going out of there, what's a few more?

I know this is as I live under arrival/departures. Of the planes that fly over my house regularly, on approach the 737 is the loudest as it often is downright roaring when it flies over followed by CF6 equipped 767s which aren't exactly loud on approach, but the engines make a desticnt whine that travels a good distance. The A320s make their fuel vent noise which is loud enough, but again, not a roar. The Dash 8 classic is much louder than the Q400 as the engine itself screams on approach. The A330s aren't bad and if they have Trents they don't make much noise unless they spool up, but I'll never complain when I hear that sound. And then the 787s are silent as expected. On departure, the loudest is the 767 with the CF6s. They roar the most out of all the planes that fly over regularly, but how I miss the 732s and 727s. Yes, noise does not bother me.

jbs2886 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I could see PAE eventually taking upwards 10% of the traffic. SeaTac will not miss this. Increasingly public entities are looking at regional solutions. Seattle Tacoma ports merged in part last year.

It is also interesting SeaTac Light Rail's northern extension is going to PAE. It may involve a car change, but I don't think so.

Maybe SeaTac won't but the biggest issue is going to be Alaska competing against itself. If its higher fares, a lot will still go down to SeaTac. If its lower fares, people from Seattle will go to PAE. I'm sure Alaska can pull it off, but it will be difficult not to take a hit on your own margin.

I would imagine the fares ex PAE would be very similar if not identical to the fares ex SEA. It wouldn't make sense for AS to price them radically differently.

32andBelow wrote:

Chugach wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

That's over 3000 miles dude. ANC SFO is probably going to be next. AA does it with a 757.

So? CO used to do IAH-ANC on a 738. ANC-Hawaii is 2800 miles, and that's with ETOPS fuel requirements. Once AS has the MAX it should easily be within their capabilities.

Agree on ANC-SFO, though.

ANC ORD is there longest route at 2800 miles and it comes in so light they have had to divert to elmendorf AFB for fuel after 1 missed approach in ANC. I think AA would do it on a 737 if they could.

ANC-KOA is AS' longest route, not ANC-ORD.

FWIW, I've seen AS divert Hawaii-ANC to FAI when high winds have shut down ANC. I would assume Hawaii-ANC has to have more fuel on board due to ETOPS requirements than ORD-ANC.

AA has shown about as much interest in ANC historically as a case of the clap. Since AA is AS' new BFF, I personally wouldn't be too surprised if AS linked up ANC-DFW, maybe even a situation like ANC-PHX currently where AA flies it in summer and AS flies it in winter (just so long as they don't tell each other about it, antitrust rules and all).

jbs2886 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I could see PAE eventually taking upwards 10% of the traffic. SeaTac will not miss this. Increasingly public entities are looking at regional solutions. Seattle Tacoma ports merged in part last year.

It is also interesting SeaTac Light Rail's northern extension is going to PAE. It may involve a car change, but I don't think so.

Maybe SeaTac won't but the biggest issue is going to be Alaska competing against itself. If its higher fares, a lot will still go down to SeaTac. If its lower fares, people from Seattle will go to PAE. I'm sure Alaska can pull it off, but it will be difficult not to take a hit on your own margin.

What Alaska will be interested in is not the specific fares, as long as they can sell them. What they want is margin on the fares. If they charge more to get that margin, but enough passengers pay it for the time savings, it's a net win for Alaska.

It's been discussed in the past that one of the challenges of operating a small outpost like Paine Field is the reduced economy of scale. AS should have excellent economy of scale at SEA. That works against PAE's economics.

However, the proximity is probably close enough that PAE can still benefit somewhat on crew and staff basing, maintenance resources, etc.

More notably, I got curious a couple days ago and happened to look up SEA's landing fees and terminal lease rates. They seem really high compared to what I know of other commercial spaces, even recognizing that airports are significantly more expensive than typical commercial spaces. Based on my understanding of those compared to other airports, I think they have a lot of potential for improvements on that portion of their expenses at PAE.

32andBelow wrote:

Chugach wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

That's over 3000 miles dude. ANC SFO is probably going to be next. AA does it with a 757.

So? CO used to do IAH-ANC on a 738. ANC-Hawaii is 2800 miles, and that's with ETOPS fuel requirements. Once AS has the MAX it should easily be within their capabilities.

Agree on ANC-SFO, though.

ANC ORD is there longest route at 2800 miles and it comes in so light they have had to divert to elmendorf AFB for fuel after 1 missed approach in ANC. I think AA would do it on a 737 if they could.

One and done is about what all flights are planned at unless there is some other looming reason (eg weather, high winds, etc.) or your departure airport had cheap fuel compared to your destination. That could have happened FAI-ANC.