FA9295 wrote:

doug_or wrote:

N174UA wrote:

Is DL still operating PDX-NRT daily? Any updates on them possibly discontinuing the route based on the DL-KE joint venture?

I think it is 5x weekly right now. Hard to imagine it sticking around with the continued draw-down of NRT, but who knows.

If DL drops the route, one of the two Japanese airlines will probably pick it up. The O&D market on this route is supposedly pretty high...

Is the O&D actually really that high between PDX and TYO? I often see it claimed on a.net, but have never seen any data to back it up. I would be shocked if DL doesnt drop PDX-NRT in favor of PDX-ICN within the next year or so. And I don't know that it's a sure thing that Japanese carriers would swiftly swoop in to replace the lost link between PDX and Japan.

I suspect the odds of a Japanese carrier starting PDX - TYO decreased with the apparent news JAL will restart service to Seattle in late 2018 / early 2019. The article indicates service will feature 787 aircraft, starting at Narita, then shifting to Haneda by 2020.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... liner.html

NW747 wrote:

I suspect the odds of a Japanese carrier starting PDX - TYO decreased with the apparent news JAL will restart service to Seattle in late 2018 / early 2019. The article indicates service will feature 787 aircraft, starting at Narita, then shifting to Haneda by 2020.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... liner.html

And once again, Portland is short changed....

flyoregon wrote:

NW747 wrote:

I suspect the odds of a Japanese carrier starting PDX - TYO decreased with the apparent news JAL will restart service to Seattle in late 2018 / early 2019. The article indicates service will feature 787 aircraft, starting at Narita, then shifting to Haneda by 2020.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... liner.html

And once again, Portland is short changed....

Seattle is a much larger, stronger business market and has a lot more Alaska feed. Makes complete sense. We are lucky to have the international service we have now at PDX.

TransWorldOne wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

NW747 wrote:

I suspect the odds of a Japanese carrier starting PDX - TYO decreased with the apparent news JAL will restart service to Seattle in late 2018 / early 2019. The article indicates service will feature 787 aircraft, starting at Narita, then shifting to Haneda by 2020.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... liner.html

And once again, Portland is short changed....

Seattle is a much larger, stronger business market and has a lot more Alaska feed. Makes complete sense. We are lucky to have the international service we have now at PDX.

Yeah, I get it, but just settling and constantly believing that we’re “lucky” is part of the problem. Portland is the 18th largest CSA in the US, and we have just one year round TPAC and one year round TATL flight which isn’t even daily. It’s been said over and over again, so there’s no sense in repeating it. A city the size of Portland that does have a strong business and leisure market is not adequately served internationally.

Cathay Pacific will be Portland’s OneWorld China/Asia link. JAL just paid off DL’s mortgage at PDX.

TransWorldOne wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

NW747 wrote:

I suspect the odds of a Japanese carrier starting PDX - TYO decreased with the apparent news JAL will restart service to Seattle in late 2018 / early 2019. The article indicates service will feature 787 aircraft, starting at Narita, then shifting to Haneda by 2020.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... liner.html

And once again, Portland is short changed....

Seattle is a much larger, stronger business market and has a lot more Alaska feed. Makes complete sense. We are lucky to have the international service we have now at PDX.

Sigh... this is very anoying. There's already two daily SEA-NRT flights, I don't think they need a third.

TransWorldOne wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

NW747 wrote:

I suspect the odds of a Japanese carrier starting PDX - TYO decreased with the apparent news JAL will restart service to Seattle in late 2018 / early 2019. The article indicates service will feature 787 aircraft, starting at Narita, then shifting to Haneda by 2020.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... liner.html

And once again, Portland is short changed....

Seattle is a much larger, stronger business market and has a lot more Alaska feed. Makes complete sense. We are lucky to have the international service we have now at PDX.

You are very correct!! PDX is a great airport. And Portland is an awesome city minus the politics and homeless. Unfortunately it's tourism market is still too seasonal and it's business market not strong enough to fill up the front of the planes on those international flights on a strong year round basis. Heck...the the 1 year round Asian flight we have isn't even daily for a good chunk of the year due to those weak Tuesdays and Wednesdays. PDX is growing though and at some point will be able to sustain another Asian flight. Compared to other similar sized cities PDX is very lucky to have what it has in terms of nonstop destinations, and we can largely thank Alaska Airlines for that. In the meantime we should take advantage of what we have or make the easy connection through Seattle which has an awesome array of nonstop destinations to choose from.

There isn’t really a great analogue situation that I can think of in the US where you have two large CSA’s that are relatively close together. Without a doubt, Seattle has more people, a larger economy, a wealthier population, more sources of business traffic, and more global name recognition. Does this mean PDX is chopped liver? No not at all.
With that said, there is a HUGE difference in summer vs winter lift to Europe. Could some of those flights go year round and do well? I’m sure they could.
Last I checked, PDX is still an AS hub. It doesn’t get nearly the attention that SEA gets, and that’s understandable to a certain extent. But with the space constraints in SEA, DL competition, and the lack of both of those things in PDX, one would think a little more attention to the south would be warranted.
More than an additional carrier to Europe or a new destination, I think increasing existing seasonal service is the mostly likely path for growth.
As for Asia, there isn’t really a clear view forward. If DL does pull up stakes on NRT, I would honestly be surprised if service to ICN doesn’t follow. DL has managed to keep NRT running with no feed on either end. This would suggest there is a market there. Whether either Japanese carrier jumps in or not is anyone’s guess. I don’t see AA or UA coming to fill the gap.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QXE9985

AS just flew a Horizon E175 from OKC to PDX. This is obviously just a re-positioning flight, but still an oddball, nonetheless...

FA9295 wrote:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QXE9985

AS just flew a Horizon E175 from OKC to PDX. This is obviously just a re-positioning flight, but still an oddball, nonetheless...

It is a brand new E175 N631QX delivered to Horizon Air.

Southwest's load factors for 2017 were recently posted on the Southwest Airlines Network 2018 thread. I've gone through and filtered the stats for PDX:

In 2017, every Southwest Airlines flight to and from PDX averaged an 82.6% load factor (including both departing and arriving flights).

Inbound flights to PDX:
AUS-PDX: 93.9%
BWI-PDX: 91.6%
PHX-PDX: 91.3%
MDW-PDX: 90.6%
DEN-PDX: 90.4%
LAX-PDX: 88.6%
SNA-PDX: 88.0%
DAL-PDX: 87.7%
LAS-PDX: 86.7%
STL-PDX: 85.3%
MCI-PDX: 84.6%
SAN-PDX: 83.9%
HOU-PDX: 83.9%
ABQ-PDX: 83.6%
ONT-PDX: 82.8%
SJC-PDX: 82.3%
OAK-PDX: 81.7%
BUR-PDX: 80.2%
SMF-PDX: 69.8%
SFO-PDX: 56.0%

Outbound flights from PDX:
PDX-AUS: 93.7%
PDX-PHX: 91.4%
PDX-MDW: 90.1%
PDX-DEN: 90.0%
PDX-LAX: 89.5%
PDX-DAL: 87.8%
PDX-BWI: 87.4%
PDX-STL: 87.3%
PDX-LAS: 87.0%
PDX-HOU: 85.8%
PDX-SNA: 85.0%
PDX-ABQ: 84.8%
PDX-ONT: 84.7%
PDX-OAK: 81.9%
PDX-MCI: 81.8%
PDX-BUR: 78.8%
PDX-SJC: 77.8%
PDX-SAN: 77.2%
PDX-SEA: 74.7% (Not really sure why this was there, and SEA-PDX is not listed there at all)
PDX-SMF: 72.2%
PDX-SFO: 55.0%

Some notes:
Not really sure why PDX-SEA is on there, or where that statistic even came from... There's no SEA-PDX statistic from what I saw.

The load factors to/from SFO are troubling. Obviously, this is a very competitive route and Southwest jumped into the competition only somewhat recently. I wonder if the route will end up facing the chopping block anytime soon. Hopefully not. With that being said, Southwest seems to be keeping their ground on the PDX-LAX / LAX-PDX flights.

ABQ, AUS, BWI and SNA all performed very well. Not sure why they suspended the ABQ route, but I have a feeling that the SNA route ended due to limited available slots at the airport. As for AUS, HOU and BWI, only God knows why...

The load factors for SMF are also somewhat lagging. Kind of surprised because I thought this was one of Southwest's "flagship" routes out of PDX, similarly to OAK and SJC.

Other than the things that I've mentioned above, Southwest seems to be doing quite well at PDX and they appear to be keeping the competition with Alaska/Horizon very interesting!

Thanks for the numbers, pretty cool. Kind of crazy the AUS and BWI numbers, however seasonal. SW knows what they are doing, but is there really that much of a drop off in the off-season, that they can’t run these year round? With AS running the same routes in summer (AUS not being seasonal), these are pretty good numbers. I know AS extended the BWI route longer last summer than initially disclosed/planned. Maybe apples and oranges, but when UA briefly suspends IAD service in the winter (with their large dom/intl hub there), guess there just isn’t enough revenue to the DC area in the off-season. At least AS can make DCA work year round.

FA9295 wrote:

Inbound flights to PDX:
SJC-PDX: 82.3%
OAK-PDX: 81.7%
SFO-PDX: 56.0%

Outbound flights from PDX:
PDX-OAK: 81.9%
PDX-SJC: 77.8%
PDX-SFO: 55.0%

Some notes:

The load factors to/from SFO are troubling. Obviously, this is a very competitive route and Southwest jumped into the competition only somewhat recently. I wonder if the route will end up facing the chopping block anytime soon. Hopefully not. With that being said, Southwest seems to be keeping their ground on the PDX-LAX / LAX-PDX flights.

One big difference is that WN has focus cities at OAK and SJC, but not at SFO. WN also is connecting more passengers through OAK than it does through SJC or SFO, and WN has nonstop service to more destinations from OAK than it does from SJC or SFO. Another big difference is that UA has a hub at SFO, and there are many frequent flyers in the San Francisco Bay Area who are loyal to UA and who prefer to fly on UA.

I think that load factors might possibly improve on the WN PDX-SFO nonstop flights since SFO is slightly closer to Downtown San Francisco than OAK is, since PDX is the largest West Coast WN station outside of California, since the Virgin America brand will be discontinued on April 24th, since PDX is one of the top domestic destinations traveled to from SFO, and since demand for flights to SFO from PDX has increased in 2017.

pdxav8r wrote:

Thanks for the numbers, pretty cool. Kind of crazy the AUS and BWI numbers, however seasonal. SW knows what they are doing, but is there really that much of a drop off in the off-season, that they can’t run these year round? With AS running the same routes in summer (AUS not being seasonal), these are pretty good numbers. I know AS extended the BWI route longer last summer than initially disclosed/planned. Maybe apples and oranges, but when UA briefly suspends IAD service in the winter (with their large dom/intl hub there), guess there just isn’t enough revenue to the DC area in the off-season. At least AS can make DCA work year round.

You'd think that either AS or WN would want to one-up the other airline and make the flight operate year-round by now. In WN's case, since their PDX-BWI flight seems to be doing well (IDK about Alaska's flight, but I'm sure the numbers aren't too far off from WN's flight), I don't think they would really have anything to loose...

The same goes for AS and AA for the PDX-PHL flight.

It’s no surprise the loads are low to/from SFO. When WN announced the additions a year of two ago I said that’s all we need. There are now ~40 flights a day between Portland and the Bay Area. Southwest needs to redirect resources to unserved/underserved routes from PDX, like year round to BWI and HOU and adding BNA etc. This is an example of an airline not always making the logical or economically advantageous decisions, let alone what’s best for passengers or markets.

PDX757 wrote:

There isn’t really a great analogue situation that I can think of in the US where you have two large CSA’s that are relatively close together. Without a doubt, Seattle has more people, a larger economy, a wealthier population, more sources of business traffic, and more global name recognition. Does this mean PDX is chopped liver? No not at all.
With that said, there is a HUGE difference in summer vs winter lift to Europe. Could some of those flights go year round and do well? I’m sure they could.
Last I checked, PDX is still an AS hub. It doesn’t get nearly the attention that SEA gets, and that’s understandable to a certain extent. But with the space constraints in SEA, DL competition, and the lack of both of those things in PDX, one would think a little more attention to the south would be warranted.
More than an additional carrier to Europe or a new destination, I think increasing existing seasonal service is the mostly likely path for growth.
As for Asia, there isn’t really a clear view forward. If DL does pull up stakes on NRT, I would honestly be surprised if service to ICN doesn’t follow. DL has managed to keep NRT running with no feed on either end. This would suggest there is a market there. Whether either Japanese carrier jumps in or not is anyone’s guess. I don’t see AA or UA coming to fill the gap.

I agree here and I hope that some airlines realize the pain and space constraints in Seattle. I would like to see Delta feed some passengers through PDX to destinations like ANC, HNL, and LAS. I know they have dabbled in those markets before for seasonal service/conferences, but I think it might be worthwhile for them as they see gate limitations up north.

Looks like the AMS flight is diverting to MSP. Can't find a reason, but probably mechanical judging how far north they were when they diverted.

DL178 from Portland to Amsterdam https://fr24.com/DAL178/10f4bb25

ooslc wrote:

Looks like the AMS flight is diverting to MSP. Can't find a reason, but probably mechanical judging how far north they were when they diverted.

DL178 from Portland to Amsterdam https://fr24.com/DAL178/10f4bb25

Huh... The flight is currently set to go from MSP to DTW and from DTW to AMS.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL ... /KPDX/KMSP

FA9295 wrote:

ooslc wrote:

Looks like the AMS flight is diverting to MSP. Can't find a reason, but probably mechanical judging how far north they were when they diverted.

DL178 from Portland to Amsterdam https://fr24.com/DAL178/10f4bb25

Huh... The flight is currently set to go from MSP to DTW and from DTW to AMS.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL ... /KPDX/KMSP

Super odd. Misfile? Maybe to pick up a new qualified crew that wasn’t available in MSP? I’m sure the passengers aren’t happy.

HEADS-UP PDX spotters...Icelandairs' TF-FIR, Vatnajökull B-757 is presently inbound to PDX from KEF (FI665). This is the second Icelandair special themed aircraft, paying tribute to the stunning natural wonders of Iceland...with the emphasis being on glaciers...the first was TF-FIU (Hekla Aurora). The paint job on Vatnajökull is stunning! Hope someone is able to take advantage of its' PDX arrival and next day departure (04-08) and get some great pictures.

Looks like the POP is planning to tear down CC-A and extend CC-B adding two more jetway gates.........The lower level of the newly extended B will be used for ground loading activities..

lhpdx wrote:

Looks like the POP is planning to tear down CC-A and extend CC-B adding two more jetway gates.........The lower level of the newly extended B will be used for ground loading activities..

Do you have a source or rendering of the plan?

Here's the source..https://popcdn.azureedge.net/pdfs/Apr18_AG_Fin.pdf Scroll down 5 pages and you'll see the rendering.........

That’s really smart.
The newly cleaned up B gates are way better than before. Just more light and friendly.

Extended that a bit and getting ridding of the horrible A makes good sense.
Hell, United could just take all of B and probably be ok.

lhpdx wrote:

Looks like the POP is planning to tear down CC-A and extend CC-B adding two more jetway gates.........The lower level of the newly extended B will be used for ground loading activities..

So we're going from 12 ground loading positions to what...a few? What's happening to all the DH4 routes? They can't all become
E75 routes. In a few years PDX will be very different. I wish they'd keep CC-A and just totally renovate it making it roomier and
more customer friendly for ground loading.

jbpdx wrote:

When WN announced the additions a year of two ago I said that’s all we need. There are now ~40 flights a day between Portland and the Bay Area. Southwest needs to redirect resources to unserved/underserved routes from PDX, like year round to BWI and HOU and adding BNA etc. This is an example of an airline not always making the logical or economically advantageous decisions, let alone what’s best for passengers or markets.

SFO, with fares that have been about $100.00 r/t on the 4 carriers flying the route for the past year or so, loads are low, there are too many flights, subsequently seats aren't full & someone has to flinch, I bet it's WN.

For AS this is hub to hub service, for UA this is an important route feeding via it's major hub on the West Coast, VX now AS, was also feeding it's SFO hub, only WN is point to point here in this market, they will keep flying half full planes or stop flying the route.

Frontier Airlines seasonal service to and from Cleveland begins again today (04-08-18) with the arrival of flight 1421 at 6:06PM from CLE (N719FR). The departure from PDX to CLE is scheduled at 9:35PM. This also marks the first day of the previously announced new Frontier service between PDX and AUS. Frontier flight 1291 is scheduled to arrive at PDX at 10:10PM and Frontier flight 1291 from PDX to AUS is scheduled to depart Portland at 11:44PM.

Not sure what's going on, but AS does not seem to be doing very well on the PDX-DTW route, as it is getting suspended yet again from August 26th to November 3rd.

Also, PDX-OMA does not appear to be resuming next summer.

FA9295 wrote:

Not sure what's going on, but AS does not seem to be doing very well on the PDX-DTW route, as it is getting suspended yet again from August 26th to November 3rd.

Also, PDX-OMA does not appear to be resuming next summer.

No surprise here..Portland has not been much of a priority since the merger began...Seems like most of the focus is now on SEA and SJC............

Does anyone know what happened to the DL flight to AMS today? It arrived from AMS around 11:15a (as a A332, which isn’t normal), DL showed it at its normal departure time on flypdx.com this morning. Now DL has removed it from the flypdx.com, and it isn’t listed at all (even as a delayed or cancelled flight). Strange.

pdxav8r wrote:

Does anyone know what happened to the DL flight to AMS today? It arrived from AMS around 11:15a (as a A332, which isn’t normal), DL showed it at its normal departure time on flypdx.com this morning. Now DL has removed it from the flypdx.com, and it isn’t listed at all (even as a delayed or cancelled flight). Strange.

Very odd, especially after the debacle last week when they diverted to MSP then DTW. Reminds me of the railroads in the ‘60s when they were trying to piss everyone off so they could get out of passenger operations.

pdx wrote:

So we're going from 12 ground loading positions to what...a few? What's happening to all the DH4 routes? They can't all become
E75 routes. In a few years PDX will be very different. I wish they'd keep CC-A and just totally renovate it making it roomier and
more customer friendly for ground loading.

They haven't forgotten about the DH4s. The reconstruction of CC-B will allow room for a new ramp-level hold-room with access to an adequate number of ground-loading positions as well.

pdxav8r wrote:

Does anyone know what happened to the DL flight to AMS today? It arrived from AMS around 11:15a (as a A332, which isn’t normal), DL showed it at its normal departure time on flypdx.com this morning. Now DL has removed it from the flypdx.com, and it isn’t listed at all (even as a delayed or cancelled flight). Strange.

AMS RON'd into PDX today. It's at NE parking, some kind of schedule shift most likely.

Ya'll seem to miss it. Jetgo of Australia swung through HIO with their new E145 today. Unusual carrier to see here stateside.

HVN2HEL2LAX wrote:

Ya'll seem to miss it. Jetgo of Australia swung through HIO with their new E145 today. Unusual carrier to see here stateside.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/JET ... /KIWA/KHIO
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/JET ... /KHIO/PANC

It looks like this is a delivery flight, which stopped at HIO for fuel. That's gonna be quite the long trek for an Embraer E145 to reach Australia... I wonder how many more legs that it'll have to fly...

AS833 PDX-HNL diverted to SEA: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ASA ... /KPDX/KSEA

I'm guessing this was a mechanical issue.

United 2017 Load Factors to/from PDX, EUG, MFR:

This was posted on the UA network thread. Similarly to the WN post above, this is filtered through Oregon's airports.

Note that this is only for UA's mainline flights (Airbus A320/Boeing 737). With that being said, RDM and OTH aren't included in this report, being that they both currently don't operate any United mainline flights.

Outbound flights:
PDX-IAH: 95.4%
PDX-DEN: 92.9%
PDX-ORD: 92.7%
PDX-EWR: 91.1%
PDX-IAD: 90.1%
PDX-SFO: 88.8%

EUG-DEN: 80.0%
EUG-SFO: 75.4%

MFR-DEN: 77.1%
MFR-SFO: 68.5%

Inbound flights:
ORD-PDX: 93.3%
IAH-PDX: 92.9%
DEN-PDX: 88.9%
IAD-PDX: 86.6%
SFO-PDX: 86.2%
EWR-PDX: 82.0%

SFO-EUG: 67.8%
DEN-EUG: 54.4%

DEN-MFR: 59.1%
SFO-MFR: 55.8%

Some notes:
- Some of these numbers are technically higher than they are shown here because the majority of the routes that are operated to/from EUG and MFR are UA express equipment, which is not included in these statistics. Obviously, It's much easier to fill up a CRJ2, CRJ7 and/or E175 rather than a A320/B737, so some of the percentages are lower for that reason but would normally be higher.

- The stats overall for PDX look great. I'm sure they could make LAX-PDX work at some point in time.

- IAH routes to/from PDX are doing quite well! I wonder if AS will add PDX-IAH anytime soon. The demand is clearly there.

- The high load factors for IAD make me wonder why they temporarily suspended that flight a couple months ago. Obviously, load factor alone is just one of many factors that are accounted for when an airline schedules flights.

- It strikes me as odd that the outbound stats (91.1%) for PDX's EWR flights are much higher than the inbound stats (82.0%). I don't really have an explanation for that.

FA9295 wrote:

United 2017 Load Factors to/from PDX, EUG, MFR:

This was posted on the UA network thread. Similarly to the WN post above, this is filtered through Oregon's airports.

Note that this is only for UA's mainline flights (Airbus A320/Boeing 737). With that being said, RDM and OTH aren't included in this report, being that they both currently don't operate any United mainline flights.

Outbound flights:
PDX-IAH: 95.4%
PDX-DEN: 92.9%
PDX-ORD: 92.7%
PDX-EWR: 91.1%
PDX-IAD: 90.1%
PDX-SFO: 88.8%

EUG-DEN: 80.0%
EUG-SFO: 75.4%

MFR-DEN: 77.1%
MFR-SFO: 68.5%

Inbound flights:
ORD-PDX: 93.3%
IAH-PDX: 92.9%
DEN-PDX: 88.9%
IAD-PDX: 86.6%
SFO-PDX: 86.2%
EWR-PDX: 82.0%

SFO-EUG: 67.8%
DEN-EUG: 54.4%

DEN-MFR: 59.1%
SFO-MFR: 55.8%

Some notes:
- Some of these numbers are technically higher than they are shown here because the majority of the routes that are operated to/from EUG and MFR are UA express equipment, which is not included in these statistics. Obviously, It's much easier to fill up a CRJ2, CRJ7 and/or E175 rather than a A320/B737, so some of the percentages are lower for that reason but would normally be higher.

- The stats overall for PDX look great. I'm sure they could make LAX-PDX work at some point in time.

- IAH routes to/from PDX are doing quite well! I wonder if AS will add PDX-IAH anytime soon. The demand is clearly there.

- The high load factors for IAD make me wonder why they temporarily suspended that flight a couple months ago. Obviously, load factor alone is just one of many factors that are accounted for when an airline schedules flights.

- It strikes me as odd that the outbound stats (91.1%) for PDX's EWR flights are much higher than the inbound stats (82.0%). I don't really have an explanation for that.

Thanks for these stats. The only reason I could think of for the disparity of west to east being greater, is that UA may position different aircraft east vs. west because of performance issues.

The high load factors for IAD make me wonder why they temporarily suspended that flight a couple months ago. Obviously, load factor alone is just one of many factors that are accounted for when an airline schedules flights.

As long as (some of) the airlines can continue to get away with treating PDX like Salina Regional Airport, they will.

jbpdx wrote:

The high load factors for IAD make me wonder why they temporarily suspended that flight a couple months ago. Obviously, load factor alone is just one of many factors that are accounted for when an airline schedules flights.

As long as (some of) the airlines can continue to get away with treating PDX like Salina Regional Airport, they will.

FA9295 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

The high load factors for IAD make me wonder why they temporarily suspended that flight a couple months ago. Obviously, load factor alone is just one of many factors that are accounted for when an airline schedules flights.

As long as (some of) the airlines can continue to get away with treating PDX like Salina Regional Airport, they will.

Sad but true. I was watching some spotting on YouTube at MIA and it’s amazing seeing all the nonstops coming in from Vienna, Madrid, Milan, etc., but zero from PDX, a 19 million+pax/year airport.

jbpdx wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

As long as (some of) the airlines can continue to get away with treating PDX like Salina Regional Airport, they will.

Sad but true. I was watching some spotting on YouTube at MIA and it’s amazing seeing all the nonstops coming in from Vienna, Madrid, Milan, etc., but zero from PDX, a 19 million+pax/year airport.

I think one of the main issues is that PDX's airport terminal is way too small, and cannot support too many widebody aircraft at one time. Yeah, concourse E is expanding, but that won't solve the widebody issue, as those will all be regional gates, and that is still not nearly enough of an expansion to make a major difference in the long run.

The only way an expansion will actually make an impact on widebody operations and to entice Delta to consider ICN & CDG, British Airways to LHR, and even far-fetched oddities such as Cathay Pacific to HKG, China Airlines to TPE, Emirates to DXB, and Aer Lingus to DUB is to either greatly expand concourse D, or build a whole new satellite terminal suited for widebody aircraft. Aside from the cost, one of the main problems is that there is very little room for the airport to expand at all, given its close proximity to the Columbia River as well as Interstate 205.

Also, another problem, which is actually quite annoying to me, is that the Port of Portland keeps spending/wasting money by adding completely unnecessary facilities to the airport, such as a Providence express health clinic, a distillery, and a mini-movie theater among many other things. These are NOT things that you normally see in airports. I get that it makes PDX unique from other airports in a positive and quirky way, but in my opinion, that money should be spent on actually expanding the terminals/operations at the airport, like every other city would want to do with/for their airport.

…^^^

I was contemplating a 738/739 to MIA or FLL.

Looks like Alaska has already added a 2nd 738 PDX-HNL Tues/Thurs for summer, starting 17 May, to make up for the loss of seats caused by Hawaiian’s realignment of equipment. Also, HA switches PDX-OGG from A321 to 767 on 31 May for summer.

FA9295 wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

Sad but true. I was watching some spotting on YouTube at MIA and it’s amazing seeing all the nonstops coming in from Vienna, Madrid, Milan, etc., but zero from PDX, a 19 million+pax/year airport.

I think one of the main issues is that PDX's airport terminal is way too small, and cannot support too many widebody aircraft at one time. Yeah, concourse E is expanding, but that won't solve the widebody issue, as those will all be regional gates, and that is still not nearly enough of an expansion to make a major difference in the long run.

The only way an expansion will actually make an impact on widebody operations and to entice Delta to consider ICN & CDG, British Airways to LHR, and even far-fetched oddities such as Cathay Pacific to HKG, China Airlines to TPE, Emirates to DXB, and Aer Lingus to DUB is to either greatly expand concourse D, or build a whole new satellite terminal suited for widebody aircraft. Aside from the cost, one of the main problems is that there is very little room for the airport to expand at all, given its close proximity to the Columbia River as well as Interstate 205.

Also, another problem, which is actually quite annoying to me, is that the Port of Portland keeps spending/wasting money by adding completely unnecessary facilities to the airport, such as a Providence express health clinic, a distillery, and a mini-movie theater among many other things. These are NOT things that you normally see in airports. I get that it makes PDX unique from other airports in a positive and quirky way, but in my opinion, that money should be spent on actually expanding the terminals/operations at the airport, like every other city would want to do with/for their airport.

I really don't think the costs to add commissions has anything to do with expansion of terminals. Even if it did, it would be a minute amount in comparison. I agree that the airport needs to expand gate space, but they need to do so responsibly. The end of concourse 'C' has (or at least did) space for widebody a/c. The problem being no CBP facilities, although if needed, I'm sure they could easily figure it out. If the airport was busting at the seams with international widebody flights, then the conversation is different, but at the moment it's not.

But as DHS continues to introduce preclearance at major international airports, the need for expanded CBP at PDX decreases, thus making it easier. So, let's say that Aer Lingus decided to add a flight to DUB from Portland. That's a pre-clearance airport and they wouldn't need to park at 'D'. With proposed preclearance airports at LHR, AMS, NRT, MEX, KEF, DXB, and many others, the need for international parking at the end of 'D' would no longer exist. Alaska partners like Icelandair (or British Airways and Emirates if they decided to add Portland) could conceivably park at 'C' while AeroMexico can be by their buddy Delta.

Maybe they've since adjusted the 'C' gates not allowing for wb jets anymore, but my point is, pre-clearance airports I think can open up a lot of room at PDX without further construction for now.

Flew into HNL for the first time. Very disappointed with the airport. Kinda ratty and disorganized. Getting to baggage claim was a joke. I’ll get another look when I leave. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying the 80 degree humid weather.

jbpdx wrote:

Flew into HNL for the first time. Very disappointed with the airport. Kinda ratty and disorganized. Getting to baggage claim was a joke. I’ll get another look when I leave. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying the 80 degree humid weather.

It's a pretty tired airport nowadays, but it sure was nice back in the late '70s/early '80s! I love the open air feel and seeing the palm trees swaying in the breeze. Not sure if you saw it on arrival, but there are plans to largely redo HNL, with extending concourses, building new ones, etc. So it will be a mess for several more years, but from the plans I saw, it will be really nice once its all done.

Sigh... Alaska is suspending PDX-DTW, yet again, from August 26th and will not resume until March 10th, 2019. Was originally set to resume in November 2018. They clearly should have made this a seasonal route right from the start...

FA9295 wrote:

Sigh... Alaska is suspending PDX-DTW, yet again, from August 26th and will not resume until March 10th, 2019. Was originally set to resume in November 2018. They clearly should have made this a seasonal route right from the start...

At least they tried. Yields probably just aren’t there in the winter, especially on a redeye that is likely relying a lot on connections. Even DL has had a hard time making this one work year round, and that’s with a global hub on one end.