Propeller Airports released new renderings of the planned passenger terminal at PAE:

Officials broke ground Monday morning to begin construction of the new commercial passenger terminal at Everett’s Paine Field.

New York-based private equity firm Propeller Airports, which is developing and will operate the teminal, released new architectural renderings of the planned terminal that replace the former proposal of a lodge-like design using lots of wood and stone with a boxier shape more like a typical office building.

Alaska Air Group last month was the first to announce that it will operate a commercial passenger service out of the airport, with flights beginning in fall 2018 and tickets going on sale early next year.

Article
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... on-begins/

are there only going to be two gates?

Midwestindy wrote:

are there only going to be two gates?

Correct. From the article:

The new terminal will have just two airport gates. With typical turn times that means the peak capacity of the airport will be roughly 16 flights per day.

Alaska said it plans to operate nine daily departures from the airport to destinations along the West Coast from Oregon to California.

Can't wait! I live east of Everett and traffic to/from SEA is always painful. Their timetable feels a bit optimistic and so I'm not sure if I'd bet money on commercial flights in 2018, but I appreciate their urgency. I guess the final word is when Alaska opens up bookings out of PAE.

I wonder what the longterm demand is. Despite legal agreements, I'm sure they had the foresight to design potential expansion into the structure..... no?

This is hopefully the start of something great for the Puget Sound region. Long overdue.

Which side of the airport is this? Off Airport Road or on the side of the FoF Museum?

I wonder if Southwest is interested in service

Where does Alaska plan to fly its planes to from Paine Field? A non-stop from SAN would be great!

INFINITI329 wrote:

I wonder if Southwest is interested in service

Probably, but make them give up a gate at DAL.

Here's an article from Seattle Business Magazine last August that gives context.

http://seattlebusinessmag.com/paine-field-ready-takeoff

Key points:

--there are passionate NIMBY's around Paine Field, but even the left-leaning 9th Circuit rejected their suits, so unlikely to be an issue.
--Allegiant has expressed interest in using PAE but as of then had made no plans.
--Snohomish County alone is 870,000 people, before adding in northern King County, so there could be a market for way more than 16 flights a day.
--Ground access could be a problem, especially during Boeing shift changes.

Article in the Seattle Times from May 17:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ine-field/

--Alaska apparently plans to start using 737's and E175's.
--Developer is confident there will be interest for more gates.

Thoughts:

What a weird terminal design. Ground-level gates? 737's are depicted, but even with regional a/c a two-floor terminal should work fine. The beautiful two-level, 4-gate terminal in Bismarck, ND is a good example of a well-designed, easily expandable small-airport terminal . Much better design than what's depicted here.

Only two gates? I wonder if it was harder to defeat NIMBY's than expected, and by going small, they may have minimized legal problems.

Best wishes to PAE and Propeller Airports in developing this airport. If I lived north of Seattle, I'd sure like the prospect of having PAE as an option.

So is AS currently the only airline with definite plans to serve PAE?

Driving down to Seattle this weekend, might swing by to see exactly where the terminal is going to be located. Exciting and interesting for PAE.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Here's an article from Seattle Business Magazine last August that gives context.

http://seattlebusinessmag.com/paine-field-ready-takeoff

Key points:

--there are passionate NIMBY's around Paine Field, but even the left-leaning 9th Circuit rejected their suits, so unlikely to be an issue.
--Allegiant has expressed interest in using PAE but as of then had made no plans.
--Snohomish County alone is 870,000 people, before adding in northern King County, so there could be a market for way more than 16 flights a day.
--Ground access could be a problem, especially during Boeing shift changes.

Article in the Seattle Times from May 17:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ine-field/

--Alaska apparently plans to start using 737's and E175's.
--Developer is confident there will be interest for more gates.

Thoughts:

What a weird terminal design. Ground-level gates? 737's are depicted, but even with regional a/c a two-floor terminal should work fine. The beautiful two-level, 4-gate terminal in Bismarck, ND is a good example of a well-designed, easily expandable small-airport terminal . Much better design than what's depicted here.

Only two gates? I wonder if it was harder to defeat NIMBY's than expected, and by going small, they may have minimized legal problems.

Best wishes to PAE and Propeller Airports in developing this airport. If I lived north of Seattle, I'd sure like the prospect of having PAE as an option.

If you're concerned over two gates, you haven't been to HPN in a while, what a cluster-****! I wonder if they could/would do a HPN and operate out of hard stands when they maximize gate availability.

I wonder if they will put in an observation area. I would fly up from LA to sit and watch PAE activity.

AAlaxfan wrote:

I wonder if they will put in an observation area. I would fly up from LA to sit and watch PAE activity.

I hadn't even thought about that. That's a fantastic idea - maybe even incorporate a cafe or bar, be the perfect spot for the next Seattle-area A.net meeting!

After all the tit for tat BS AS pulled on WN when it proposed moving its operations from SEA to BFI years ago.
There's no way in Hell WN is just going to sit back and let AS have all the slots at PAE.
WN will make a proposal also when the time is right.
Then not to be left out of the dog fight DL will also ask for slots at PAE.

Flyguy

I wouldn't be surprised to see AS control both gates at the end.
DL would be the second likely as they grow in the region.
I do not see WN winning over slots....I'm sure AS would negotiate something for DAL slots though

SFOATLFlyer wrote:

Which side of the airport is this? Off Airport Road or on the side of the FoF Museum?

Airport Road, to my understanding. I wish it was on the museum side though. I could walk there in a pinch.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

What a weird terminal design. Ground-level gates? 737's are depicted, but even with regional a/c a two-floor terminal should work fine. The beautiful two-level, 4-gate terminal in Bismarck, ND is a good example of a well-designed, easily expandable small-airport terminal . Much better design than what's depicted here.

Near-ground airports can be nice; it reduces the cost substantially, and until you are at 4-5 gates there isn't much of an advantage to the second level. As a commercial/speculative terminal I would guess that minimizing the cost is pretty important.

It isn't "iconic architecture," but it is functional. Likely appropriate for the location.

Only 2 gates. Why bother.

wnflyguy wrote:

After all the tit for tat BS AS pulled on WN when it proposed moving its operations from SEA to BFI years ago.
There's no way in Hell WN is just going to sit back and let AS have all the slots at PAE.
WN will make a proposal also when the time is right.
Then not to be left out of the dog fight DL will also ask for slots at PAE.

Flyguy

I wouldn't expect WN to be real interested in Paine Field, but perhaps the future will prove me wrong. It seems like WN has a decent operation at SEA, but nothing spectacular. They were interested, if I remember correctly, in moving their entire Seattle operation to Boeing Field. With the limited gate availability at PAE, that seems like they wouldn't get the normal minimum flights they seem to like at almost all airports they operate at. I guess time will tell. Allegiant expressed interest in the past, I think I would expect them before WN. Also I wouldn't be shocked to see DL offer a few flights on small jets to SLC. With how much success AS has accomplished with west coast routes to Hawaii since adding there first two route from SEA to LIH and HNL in 2007, I wonder if HA would be brave enough and have success at an A320neo. It will be interesting to see if AS has any flights to Hawaii and what happens with the Hawaiian flights up in Bellingham.

SeaDoo wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

After all the tit for tat BS AS pulled on WN when it proposed moving its operations from SEA to BFI years ago.
There's no way in Hell WN is just going to sit back and let AS have all the slots at PAE.
WN will make a proposal also when the time is right.
Then not to be left out of the dog fight DL will also ask for slots at PAE.

Flyguy

I wouldn't expect WN to be real interested in Paine Field, but perhaps the future will prove me wrong. It seems like WN has a decent operation at SEA, but nothing spectacular. They were interested, if I remember correctly, in moving their entire Seattle operation to Boeing Field. With the limited gate availability at PAE, that seems like they wouldn't get the normal minimum flights they seem to like at almost all airports they operate at. I guess time will tell. Allegiant expressed interest in the past, I think I would expect them before WN. Also I wouldn't be shocked to see DL offer a few flights on small jets to SLC. With how much success AS has accomplished with west coast routes to Hawaii since adding there first two route from SEA to LIH and HNL in 2007, I wonder if HA would be brave enough and have success at an A320neo. It will be interesting to see if AS has any flights to Hawaii and what happens with the Hawaiian flights up in Bellingham.

The biggest issues I forsee with G4 is it'll likely detract from BLI loads, something G4 has struggled with before is capturing enough traffic to remain competitive, The problem with WN is they will not offer flights to the cities that are important to PAE travellers, like GEG or PDX.

I fully expect AS to offer at least one Hawaii flight from PAE, another top destination G4 or WN can't offer. AS is the right occupant for PAE. The largest FQTV base for AS is in the Seattle area & more passengers will likely drive to SEA or BLI to fly AS, if it isn't AS at PAE.

LAX772LR wrote:

I wonder what the longterm demand is. Despite legal agreements, I'm sure they had the foresight to design potential expansion into the structure..... no?

I would swear I had read in the past that the design is intended to be easily doubled in size, but I haven't been able to find a source confirming that recently, so it's possible my memory is wrong.

I think they could fit one gate to the NW and one gate to the SE without having to tear any existing buildings down. They might be able to build around the tower in place, however, and get a couple more gates in that direction before encroaching on Boeing's ramp. They would also have to update their environmental assessment to account for the increased flight rate.

To give everyone (including myself) a better sense of the plans, I took the liberty of creating an overlay of a layout drawing from their grading permit application and Google Maps. The alignment is not perfect, but pretty good for the limited amount of time I spent on it. The two main issues are the result is a bit cluttered and the building outline shown in the grading permit is no longer current, although it's roughly the correct size, and must be in the correct place or the grading permit would be invalid.

* Up is northeast in this view.
* Labels are my best guess.
* Measurements are approximate to about 5% accuracy.
* Scale is ~1.3 pixels per foot. (4.2 pixels per meter).
* Please let me know if the image does not display correctly.
* Sorry for the wrong color on the 737's. They were conveniently parked nearby.

This is my own derivative work. Non-commercial use ok without permission if linked to this thread.



Source 1: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40163
Source 2: Google Maps

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

H
What a weird terminal design. Ground-level gates? 737's are depicted, but even with regional a/c a two-floor terminal should work fine. The beautiful two-level, 4-gate terminal in Bismarck, ND is a good example of a well-designed, easily expandable small-airport terminal . Much better design than what's depicted here.

Only two gates? I wonder if it was harder to defeat NIMBY's than expected, and by going small, they may have minimized legal problems.

Best wishes to PAE and Propeller Airports in developing this airport. If I lived north of Seattle, I'd sure like the prospect of having PAE as an option.

There is no public funding for this project, so it's a speculative venture on Propeller Investment's part. As such, it appears they have kept the design pretty simple and low cost. There is a chance it won't draw the traffic they hope for from nearby SeaTac and Bellingham. Bismark, in contrast, has no nearby competition that I'm aware of, so it makes more sense to invest in a design for the long term.

If Paine Field turns out to be popular with travelers, I could very easily see a completely new terminal being built 15+ years from now to replace it, either starting adjacent to it and then growing from there by displacing nearby businesses and hangars, or on the undeveloped west side of Paine Field, which has better highway access anyways.

RL777 wrote:

Driving down to Seattle this weekend, might swing by to see exactly where the terminal is going to be located. Exciting and interesting for PAE.

I don't think you'll see much right now except pavement torn up near the tower. It's arguably not worth going out of your way for...unless you need an excuse to go take the nearby Boeing tour or visit one of the three historical aircraft collections at Paine Field (Flying Heritage Collection, Historic Flight Foundation, or Museum of Flight Restoration Center).

Yflyer wrote:

So is AS currently the only airline with definite plans to serve PAE?

So far, yes. The terminal developer claims they have promising talks going on with multiple other airlines. Who knows what that really means, but like other posters, I could see Delta being interested, and Allegiant has in the past expressed a desire to flight from PAE.

The crowding at SEA is probably most acute for AS, though, so from that perspective this makes the most sense for them. The last two AS flights I've taken into SEA have deplaned at remote stands, because they're out of gates. They also serve a very large proportion of the Puget Sound business travel market, no shortage of which (probably 1/5th, if not more) is closer to PAE than to SEA.

dc10lover wrote:

Only 2 gates. Why bother.

Because it is better than zero gates, and it is a start. I'm hoping that with the foot now in the door, it can eventually be expanded.

smithbs wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

Only 2 gates. Why bother.

Because it is better than zero gates, and it is a start. I'm hoping that with the foot now in the door, it can eventually be expanded.

Apparently Paine Field is never going to find the Goldilocks situation for public opinion: if people aren't complaining about how the plans are too big, will destroy the community, and could never attract the demand necessary to justify it, they'er complaining that it's too small to matter and shouldn't be bothered with.

SeaDoo wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

After all the tit for tat BS AS pulled on WN when it proposed moving its operations from SEA to BFI years ago.
There's no way in Hell WN is just going to sit back and let AS have all the slots at PAE.
WN will make a proposal also when the time is right.
Then not to be left out of the dog fight DL will also ask for slots at PAE.

Flyguy

I wouldn't expect WN to be real interested in Paine Field, but perhaps the future will prove me wrong. It seems like WN has a decent operation at SEA, but nothing spectacular. They were interested, if I remember correctly, in moving their entire Seattle operation to Boeing Field. With the limited gate availability at PAE, that seems like they wouldn't get the normal minimum flights they seem to like at almost all airports they operate at. I guess time will tell. Allegiant expressed interest in the past, I think I would expect them before WN. Also I wouldn't be shocked to see DL offer a few flights on small jets to SLC. With how much success AS has accomplished with west coast routes to Hawaii since adding there first two route from SEA to LIH and HNL in 2007, I wonder if HA would be brave enough and have success at an A320neo. It will be interesting to see if AS has any flights to Hawaii and what happens with the Hawaiian flights up in Bellingham.

This isn't HERBs WN anymore.
So with the recent addition of small slot restricted LGB and the Fight for California with AS I don't see WN passing on A new million plus catchment area of North Seattle.
WN limited and Maxed out on gates in SEA so adding PAE service would be a great addition to the Pacific Northwest.
PAE a brand new market for everyone so to sit idle and let AS capture the new and take that additional revenue from the SEA would be a dumb business move on WN part.
WN has 32 additional aircraft coming in 2018 why not grab additional revenues at a brand new North Seattle airport.

flyguy

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Here's an article from Seattle Business Magazine last August that gives context.

http://seattlebusinessmag.com/paine-field-ready-takeoff

Key points:

--there are passionate NIMBY's around Paine Field, but even the left-leaning 9th Circuit rejected their suits, so unlikely to be an issue.
--Allegiant has expressed interest in using PAE but as of then had made no plans.
--Snohomish County alone is 870,000 people, before adding in northern King County, so there could be a market for way more than 16 flights a day.
--Ground access could be a problem, especially during Boeing shift changes.

Article in the Seattle Times from May 17:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ine-field/

--Alaska apparently plans to start using 737's and E175's.
--Developer is confident there will be interest for more gates.

Thoughts:

What a weird terminal design. Ground-level gates? 737's are depicted, but even with regional a/c a two-floor terminal should work fine. The beautiful two-level, 4-gate terminal in Bismarck, ND is a good example of a well-designed, easily expandable small-airport terminal . Much better design than what's depicted here.

Only two gates? I wonder if it was harder to defeat NIMBY's than expected, and by going small, they may have minimized legal problems.

Best wishes to PAE and Propeller Airports in developing this airport. If I lived north of Seattle, I'd sure like the prospect of having PAE as an option.

I agree with almost everything you are saying, except population does not determine air traffic demand. Marion County in Indiana has around the same population but can support hundreds of daily flights, while Collin county in Texas, which also has a similar popilation, has no commercial flights. Furthermore, Many of the residents and business (Boeing) of Snohmish county will continue to use BLI or SEA so the demand may be further cut down as well. Also, the population of Snohmish county is actually 787,620, (Straight from the census bureau https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI805210/53061) not sure how you inflated it by 90,000.

Midwestindy wrote:

I agree with almost everything you are saying, except population does not determine air traffic demand. Marion County in Indiana has around the same population but can support hundreds of daily flights, while Collin county in Texas, which also has a similar popilation, has no commercial flights. Furthermore, Many of the residents and business (Boeing) of Snohmish county will continue to use BLI or SEA so the demand may be further cut down as well. Also, the population of Snohmish county is actually 787,620, (Straight from the census bureau https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI805210/53061) not sure how you inflated it by 90,000.

You're right that population is but one of many factors, and the two airports you mention look like pretty good contrasts. For Indianapolis, no doubt one of those many factors is distance to major alternative airports - 2+ hours to Louisville or 3+ hours to O'Hare.

In contrast, McKinney in Collin County Texas is less than hour from DFW (actually about the same distance as PAE-SEA, although I suspect the drive time is better), and looks like it's on the very edge of a mostly residential portion of the metro area, instead of fairly well embedded in the suburban area like PAE is. The latter includes not only quite a few residences, but also numerous major employers located even further north of SEA than PAE itself is, including not only Boeing, but also thousands of supplier workers, a major naval base, and several large medical facilities. And then there's the fact of how badly crowded SEA itself has become, which given they have twice as many runways and something like 7 times the land area to grow into, doesn't seem like it would be as much of a problem for DFW.

PAE seems to be somewhere in between those two extremes. I think they'll find respectable demand for the more popular destinations.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I agree with almost everything you are saying, except population does not determine air traffic demand. Marion County in Indiana has around the same population but can support hundreds of daily flights, while Collin county in Texas, which also has a similar popilation, has no commercial flights. Furthermore, Many of the residents and business (Boeing) of Snohmish county will continue to use BLI or SEA so the demand may be further cut down as well. Also, the population of Snohmish county is actually 787,620, (Straight from the census bureau https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI805210/53061) not sure how you inflated it by 90,000.

You're right that population is but one of many factors, and the two airports you mention look like pretty good contrasts. For Indianapolis, no doubt one of those many factors is distance to major alternative airports - 2+ hours to Louisville or 3+ hours to O'Hare.

In contrast, McKinney in Collin County Texas is less than hour from DFW (actually about the same distance as PAE-SEA, although I suspect the drive time is better), and looks like it's on the very edge of a mostly residential portion of the metro area, instead of fairly well embedded in the suburban area like PAE is. The latter includes not only quite a few residences, but also numerous major employers located even further north of SEA than PAE itself is, including not only Boeing, but also thousands of supplier workers, a major naval base, and several large medical facilities. And then there's the fact of how badly crowded SEA itself has become, which given they have twice as many runways and something like 7 times the land area to grow into, doesn't seem like it would be as much of a problem for DFW.

PAE seems to be somewhere in between those two extremes. I think they'll find respectable demand for the more popular destinations.

You are completely correct, I was providing examples of why county population is an irrelevant measure of passenger demand.

My question about PAE is, although PAE is closer to Boeing in Everett will they continue to fly through SEA considering it has nonstops to ORD/MDW and other large offices in STL and CHS.

Anyone think that AA may be interested even if only with a daily each to PHX and LAX?

Midwestindy wrote:

My question about PAE is, although PAE is closer to Boeing in Everett will they continue to fly through SEA considering it has nonstops to ORD/MDW and other large offices in STL and CHS.

It's going to come down mainly to where Alaska decides to fly. No doubt most of their business flying will still be from SEA.

If Alaska flies from PAE to somewhere Boeing needs people to go, and the price is not way out of line, Boeing will use almost certainly use Paine Field to avoid the expenses of travel time, transportation, and/or parking fees at SEA. Boeing has suppliers and/or offices at possible regional destinations like Spokane and Portland, and west coast mainline destinations like Las Vegas and LA. Other employers like Fluke and the Navy have ties to the Bay area and Hawaii, so some of these are combined business and leisure destinations. There might also be some international connections that are useful to Boeing and others from big airports like LA that SEA doesn't offer.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Here's an article from Seattle Business Magazine last August that gives context.

http://seattlebusinessmag.com/paine-field-ready-takeoff

Key points:

--there are passionate NIMBY's around Paine Field, but even the left-leaning 9th Circuit rejected their suits, so unlikely to be an issue.
--Allegiant has expressed interest in using PAE but as of then had made no plans.
--Snohomish County alone is 870,000 people, before adding in northern King County, so there could be a market for way more than 16 flights a day.
--Ground access could be a problem, especially during Boeing shift changes.

Article in the Seattle Times from May 17:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ine-field/

--Alaska apparently plans to start using 737's and E175's.
--Developer is confident there will be interest for more gates.

Thoughts:

What a weird terminal design. Ground-level gates? 737's are depicted, but even with regional a/c a two-floor terminal should work fine. The beautiful two-level, 4-gate terminal in Bismarck, ND is a good example of a well-designed, easily expandable small-airport terminal . Much better design than what's depicted here.

Only two gates? I wonder if it was harder to defeat NIMBY's than expected, and by going small, they may have minimized legal problems.

Best wishes to PAE and Propeller Airports in developing this airport. If I lived north of Seattle, I'd sure like the prospect of having PAE as an option.

South Bend Indiana has a beautiful 5 gate concourse extension that is also a half floor up with half height jet bridges. On the end gate 9 we have a 3/4 height dual purpose Domestic/International gate with an inside ramp up to it. Two level boarding makes sense for airline flight operations and baggage personell but that is about all.

Midwestindy wrote:

I agree with almost everything you are saying, except population does not determine air traffic demand. Marion County in Indiana has around the same population but can support hundreds of daily flights, while Collin county in Texas, which also has a similar popilation, has no commercial flights. Furthermore, Many of the residents and business (Boeing) of Snohmish county will continue to use BLI or SEA so the demand may be further cut down as well. Also, the population of Snohmish county is actually 787,620, (Straight from the census bureau https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI805210/53061) not sure how you inflated it by 90,000.

Let's see how someone could make the correction without insulting the person corrected.

"The Census bureau shows Snohomish County at 787,620. Where did you get an incorrect figure?"

And I could answer, "I got it from one of the articles I read. Maybe I misread the article. I'm sorry for the error."

Try a little kindness. What is with people around here?

And yes, population doesn't necessarily by itself determine an airport's traffic. Marion County also has the state capital, a major drug company, and a catchment area of several surrounding counties.

Jim

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I agree with almost everything you are saying, except population does not determine air traffic demand. Marion County in Indiana has around the same population but can support hundreds of daily flights, while Collin county in Texas, which also has a similar popilation, has no commercial flights. Furthermore, Many of the residents and business (Boeing) of Snohmish county will continue to use BLI or SEA so the demand may be further cut down as well. Also, the population of Snohmish county is actually 787,620, (Straight from the census bureau https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI805210/53061) not sure how you inflated it by 90,000.

Because I'm obviously an idiot. Let's see how someone could make the correction without insulting the person corrected.

"The Census bureau shows Snohomish County at 787,620. Where did you get an incorrect figure?"

And I could answer, "I got it from one of the articles I read. Maybe I misread the article. I'm sorry for the error."

But no, you have to act all superior. What is with people around here?

And yes, population doesn't necessarily by itself determine an airport's traffic. Marion County also has a catchment area of several surrounding counties.

Jim

Sorry you took it as an insult, I was not trying to be condescending, I was legitimately wondering how are numbers were so far off (I don't live in Snohmish county so you might have had a more up-to date estimate). If I wanted to be insulting I wouldn't have said at the beginning that I agreed with what you were saying.

I'm sorry I misinterpreted you, that's how it came across to me, I'm rather stressed right now. Here's the paragraph from the Seattle Business Magazine article from August 2016:

"Besides, since Sea-Tac is already situated between Seattle and Tacoma, Paine Field is far better positioned to serve the growing number of residents who live in Seattle and to the north. The state Office of Financial Management estimates that, by 2025, the population of Snohomish County alone will grow to 1 million, up from 870,000 today. About 4,700 travelers a day from Snohomish County depart from Sea-Tac, according to Port of Seattle passenger data from 2014 and 2015. Most presumably have to travel by highway through the center of Seattle to get there."

Maybe the reporter or State Office of Financial Management need to consult the Census Bureau? The link you provided shows an up-to-date 2016 estimate, so it's not old information. The same link shows a 2010 population figure of 713,335, so the county has been growing.

Jim

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Here's the paragraph from the Seattle Business Magazine article from August 2016: About 4,700 travelers a day from Snohomish County depart from Sea-Tac, according to Port of Seattle passenger data from 2014 and 2015. Most presumably have to travel by highway through the center of Seattle to get there."

Maybe the reporter or State Office of Financial Management need to consult the Census Bureau?

The travelers per day figure seems extremely low, too. 2015 passenger volume at SEA was 42 million, or roughly 115,000 per day. 20% of the greater Seattle metro area's population only accounts for 4% of the traffic?

wnflyguy wrote:

This isn't HERBs WN anymore.
So with the recent addition of small slot restricted LGB and the Fight for California with AS I don't see WN passing on A new million plus catchment area of North Seattle.

Herb's WN was also the airline that would serve a city with only one route, and with a very small daily number of flights. WN has moved away from that model. Of the 16 available slots at PAE, AS will apparently have 9 leaving a total of seven for everyone else. Unless WN gets all of those, and they won't, I just don't see how it would interest them. They aren't going to open a new station with that kind of capital expenditure for two or three flights especially as they don't contract anything out. It's a lot easier and cheaper for the legacies to have just a couple of flights than for Southwest to do the same.

HPRamper wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

This isn't HERBs WN anymore.
So with the recent addition of small slot restricted LGB and the Fight for California with AS I don't see WN passing on A new million plus catchment area of North Seattle.

Herb's WN was also the airline that would serve a city with only one route, and with a very small daily number of flights. WN has moved away from that model. Of the 16 available slots at PAE, AS will apparently have 9 leaving a total of seven for everyone else. Unless WN gets all of those, and they won't, I just don't see how it would interest them. They aren't going to open a new station with that kind of capital expenditure for two or three flights especially as they don't contract anything out. It's a lot easier and cheaper for the legacies to have just a couple of flights than for Southwest to do the same.

AS is hopefull it will get a minimum of 9 slots.
I'm sure if more than two airlines submit a bid for service at PAE the owners will probably have to equally diversify the slots.
But if WN were successful and getting a minimum of 7 remaining slots they would take them.
They asked for all 9 available in LGB and only received 4 and they still set up shop!
So this New WN would easily take 7 at PAE.
I could see 3 OAK, 2 DEN and 2 LAS.

Flyguy

There was a small update in the local news today. Basically, they're still on schedule to be ready for flights in fall 2018 (now clarified as September).

http://www.heraldnet.com/news/work-on-p ... ogressing/

The accompanying photo seems to have been taken from the control tower, facing south. This looks consistent with the past permit drawings. If so, the foundation walls for the gate area have been poured. They're prepping footings for what I think should be some non-public spaces closest to the camera. Left middle of the photo should be ticketing, and center middle should be security. Baggage claim would then be the area to the upper left corner.

The photo thumbnail does not seem to be clickable, so hopefully this link to the full version works:
https://2qibqm39xjt6q46gf1rwo2g1-wpengi ... 171122.jpg

iamlucky13 wrote:

There was a small update in the local news today. Basically, they're still on schedule to be ready for flights in fall 2018 (now clarified as September).

http://www.heraldnet.com/news/work-on-p ... ogressing/

The accompanying photo seems to have been taken from the control tower, facing south. This looks consistent with the past permit drawings. If so, the foundation walls for the gate area have been poured. They're prepping footings for what I think should be some non-public spaces closest to the camera. Left middle of the photo should be ticketing, and center middle should be security. Baggage claim would then be the area to the upper left corner.

The photo thumbnail does not seem to be clickable, so hopefully this link to the full version works:
https://2qibqm39xjt6q46gf1rwo2g1-wpengi ... 171122.jpg

There is a rather larger update that I didn't see mentioned in this thread, unless of course I missed it.

United announced six daily flights to its hubs in Denver and San Francisco. Alaska plans up to nine daily flights, but isn’t likely to announce specific destinations until early next year. Some possible contenders are thought to include Portland, Spokane, the Bay Area and southern California.

mcogator wrote:

There is a rather larger update that I didn't see mentioned in this thread, unless of course I missed it.

United announced six daily flights to its hubs in Denver and San Francisco. Alaska plans up to nine daily flights, but isn’t likely to announce specific destinations until early next year. Some possible contenders are thought to include Portland, Spokane, the Bay Area and southern California.

The United announcement had its own thread at the time. Since small operations like PAE service don't get much attention, the conversation didn't continue very long and was easy to miss:

viewtopic.php?t=1370899

Since there are limited flights, I expect Alaska & United to use Airbus / Boeing Aircraft - no Regional Jets.

It almost looks like there will be two jetways at the ends and maybe a commuter stairwell or ramp in the middle?

iamlucky13 wrote:

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

H
What a weird terminal design. Ground-level gates? 737's are depicted, but even with regional a/c a two-floor terminal should work fine. The beautiful two-level, 4-gate terminal in Bismarck, ND is a good example of a well-designed, easily expandable small-airport terminal . Much better design than what's depicted here.

Only two gates? I wonder if it was harder to defeat NIMBY's than expected, and by going small, they may have minimized legal problems.

Best wishes to PAE and Propeller Airports in developing this airport. If I lived north of Seattle, I'd sure like the prospect of having PAE as an option.

There is no public funding for this project, so it's a speculative venture on Propeller Investment's part. As such, it appears they have kept the design pretty simple and low cost. There is a chance it won't draw the traffic they hope for from nearby SeaTac and Bellingham. Bismark, in contrast, has no nearby competition that I'm aware of, so it makes more sense to invest in a design for the long term.

If Paine Field turns out to be popular with travelers, I could very easily see a completely new terminal being built 15+ years from now to replace it, either starting adjacent to it and then growing from there by displacing nearby businesses and hangars, or on the undeveloped west side of Paine Field, which has better highway access anyways.

RL777 wrote:

Driving down to Seattle this weekend, might swing by to see exactly where the terminal is going to be located. Exciting and interesting for PAE.

I don't think you'll see much right now except pavement torn up near the tower. It's arguably not worth going out of your way for...unless you need an excuse to go take the nearby Boeing tour or visit one of the three historical aircraft collections at Paine Field (Flying Heritage Collection, Historic Flight Foundation, or Museum of Flight Restoration Center).

Yflyer wrote:

So is AS currently the only airline with definite plans to serve PAE?

So far, yes. The terminal developer claims they have promising talks going on with multiple other airlines. Who knows what that really means, but like other posters, I could see Delta being interested, and Allegiant has in the past expressed a desire to flight from PAE.

The crowding at SEA is probably most acute for AS, though, so from that perspective this makes the most sense for them. The last two AS flights I've taken into SEA have deplaned at remote stands, because they're out of gates. They also serve a very large proportion of the Puget Sound business travel market, no shortage of which (probably 1/5th, if not more) is closer to PAE than to SEA.

United has announced they will begin service as well from both Denver and San Francisco to Paine Field
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... uRbmWlZoaP

Update: Sorry I didn't see that I was responding to a 5 month old post made before United's announcement had been made

Would love to know where Alaska will be flying. Any insights from our AS insiders?

Steel goes up:


https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/971502761773707267

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

. The beautiful two-level, 4-gate terminal in Bismarck, ND is a good example of a well-designed, easily expandable small-airport terminal . Much better design than what's depicted here.

When I think of small Airport Terminals w/ low volume, repeatedly I picture Bismark, ND..with it's 4 gates.
Curbside at night:

Airside at day:


Another favorite is Bozeman, MT. (BZN) with it's 7 gates.
Curbside at day:

Airside from above at day:
https://orbxdirect.com/product/kbzn

iamlucky13 wrote:

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

H

Yflyer wrote:

So is AS currently the only airline with definite plans to serve PAE?

So far, yes. The terminal developer claims they have promising talks going on with multiple other airlines. Who knows what that really means, but like other posters, I could see Delta being interested, and Allegiant has in the past expressed a desire to flight from PAE.

The crowding at SEA is probably most acute for AS, though, so from that perspective this makes the most sense for them. The last two AS flights I've taken into SEA have deplaned at remote stands, because they're out of gates. They also serve a very large proportion of the Puget Sound business travel market, no shortage of which (probably 1/5th, if not more) is closer to PAE than to SEA.

That's not true. UA actually was the first airline to commit to PAE with 3X daily PAE-SFO and PAE-DEN. AS came in 2nd to announce 18X daily flights. Lastly, WN was the third to announce 5X daily flights. That maxes out the allowable number of flights out of PAE.

Could we see PAE expansion? Maybe...but it will be hard to get that through the NIMBY's.