Oregon Aviation Thread - 2018

jbpdx · Fri May 04, 2018 9:04 pm

This is the third day in a row that HA26 has been delayed leaving HNL. Thursday night it was almost two hours late getting to Portland. The A321s are almost 100% full. Alaska added a second flight on Tues, Thurs to make up for some of the lost capacity and that will probably expand to more days.

flyoregon · Fri May 04, 2018 9:10 pm

jbpdx wrote:
This is the third day in a row that HA26 has been delayed leaving HNL. Thursday night it was almost two hours late getting to Portland. The A321s are almost 100% full. Alaska added a second flight on Tues, Thurs to make up for some of the lost capacity and that will probably expand to more days.

Going from an A332 to an A321 makes no sense given the history and LF out of Portland to HNL.

PDX757 · Sat May 05, 2018 1:34 am

flyoregon wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
This is the third day in a row that HA26 has been delayed leaving HNL. Thursday night it was almost two hours late getting to Portland. The A321s are almost 100% full. Alaska added a second flight on Tues, Thurs to make up for some of the lost capacity and that will probably expand to more days.

Going from an A332 to an A321 makes no sense given the history and LF out of Portland to HNL.

I’m curious where the 332 will be redeployed. I suppose 2x 321 is an increase in seats over 1x 332

Dreamflight767 · Sat May 05, 2018 2:37 am

Regarding HA. I had a relative fly from PDX to LIH via OGG on HA. So I guess they are spreading their connecting pax now between HNL & OGG. Just thought it was interesting considering HA connections are via HNL. I guess this gives pax more options.

FA9295 · Sat May 05, 2018 3:37 am

Since OAK-HNL/OGG are both back to widebody operations, it looks like the only two A321 jets that the entire airline has at the moment, are solely going back and forth between OGG/HNL and PDX. That alone, says a lot about the lack of faith that the airlines have for operating at PDX. Very sad. I think both PDX-HNL/OGG operating as daily would do just fine with the A332.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N202HA
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N204HA

Yes, I know that I sound like the person on here who's always complaining about how Delta hates DTW, but this is absolutely ridiculous...

SumChristianus · Sat May 05, 2018 3:43 am

FA9295 wrote:

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.

PDX-SEA was some kind of flight diversion or ferry. If a flight operates under regular Part 121 rules it shows up in the statistics. I tried to filter out such one off flights from the data, but PDX-SEA was operated more than four times by WN in a month so it showed up.
Overall then, it was flown, but not on a planned basis by WN.
T100 data needs some finagling to be useful, some carriers with only 50-seat jets may (still) not show up.

flyoregon · Sat May 05, 2018 5:20 pm

FA9295 wrote:
Since OAK-HNL/OGG are both back to widebody operations, it looks like the only two A321 jets that the entire airline has at the moment, are solely going back and forth between OGG/HNL and PDX. That alone, says a lot about the lack of faith that the airlines have for operating at PDX. Very sad. I think both PDX-HNL/OGG operating as daily would do just fine with the A332.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N202HA
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N204HA

Yes, I know that I sound like the person on here who's always complaining about how Delta hates DTW, but this is absolutely ridiculous...

I agree. It’s simply stupid. If it was an underperforming route or airport, I get it, but it’s not. I feel like this one is just a huge slap in the face. At what point will Portland be treated like an individual city rather than the tag along brother to Seattle? A CSA of over 3mm people with a good economy and strong traveling public and we get crapped on time and again. Is the PoP not doing their job? Is the new PoP director not focused on the airport but more on commercial properties or maritime business? Whatever it is, it’s getting old.

jbpdx · Sat May 05, 2018 7:11 pm

Condor 2090 FRA-PDX delayed overnight.

FRA
5/5/18 2:00 PM
delayed
5/6/18 9:00 AM

PDX
5/5/18 3:55 PM
delayed
5/6/18 10:42 AM

FA9295 · Sat May 05, 2018 7:15 pm

jbpdx wrote:
Condor 2090 FRA-PDX delayed overnight.

FRA
5/5/18 2:00 PM
delayed
5/6/18 9:00 AM

PDX
5/5/18 3:55 PM
delayed
5/6/18 10:42 AM

A 20 hour delay, huh...? I'm glad that I'm not on that flight...

FA9295 · Sun May 06, 2018 5:56 pm

UA DEN-EUG NOV 3>2
UA DEN-RDM NOV 3>2

That's literally it. Nothing else for Oregon this week.

jbpdx · Mon May 07, 2018 7:28 pm

flyoregon wrote:
If Alaska wants to give Portland the middle finger, I'm sure another airline would jump in.

Portland is in a precarious position with Alaska. Totally dependent. Their dominance keeps other airlines from taking many chances here. Also, the fact they don’t fly to Asia or Europe has attracted Delta to provide some international routes, but they have a less than 100% commitment to Portland because of their focus on SEA and SLC. When Alaska shifts focus to California etc. and other airlines don’t step up, we stall. When Horizon experiences a pilot shortage, it has resulted in contraction of flights and routes at PDX. As for the port, they don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm for route development that some other airports have.

metaldirtnskin · Mon May 07, 2018 8:55 pm

jbpdx wrote:
flyoregon wrote:
If Alaska wants to give Portland the middle finger, I'm sure another airline would jump in.

Portland is in a precarious position with Alaska. Totally dependent. Their dominance keeps other airlines from taking many chances here. Also, the fact they don’t fly to Asia or Europe has attracted Delta to provide some international routes, but they have a less than 100% commitment to Portland because of their focus on SEA and SLC. When Alaska shifts focus to California etc. and other airlines don’t step up, we stall. When Horizon experiences a pilot shortage, it has resulted in contraction of flights and routes at PDX. As for the port, they don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm for route development that some other airports have.

It's the "other airlines not stepping up" part that I find interesting. I pay closer attention to EUG than PDX simply because I live here - but the difference is that we're seeing double-digit growth year over year, and others (UA, DL, AA) are taking all of it, while AS/QX remains flat at best. Similar things are happening in MFR from what I can tell.

With PDX being a much larger market, I'm confused about why other carriers are not jumping in to eat AS's lunch there too.

FA9295 · Mon May 07, 2018 8:58 pm

metaldirtnskin wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
flyoregon wrote:
If Alaska wants to give Portland the middle finger, I'm sure another airline would jump in.

Portland is in a precarious position with Alaska. Totally dependent. Their dominance keeps other airlines from taking many chances here. Also, the fact they don’t fly to Asia or Europe has attracted Delta to provide some international routes, but they have a less than 100% commitment to Portland because of their focus on SEA and SLC. When Alaska shifts focus to California etc. and other airlines don’t step up, we stall. When Horizon experiences a pilot shortage, it has resulted in contraction of flights and routes at PDX. As for the port, they don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm for route development that some other airports have.

It's the "other airlines not stepping up" part that I find interesting. I pay closer attention to EUG than PDX simply because I live here - but the difference is that we're seeing double-digit growth year over year, and others (UA, DL, AA) are taking all of it, while AS/QX remains flat at best. Similar things are happening in MFR from what I can tell.

With PDX being a much larger market, I'm confused about why other carriers are not jumping in to eat AS's lunch there too.

Like UA adding PDX-LAX and EUG-LAX. Don't know why they think RDM and MFR would perform "better" than PDX and EUG.

ucdtim17 · Mon May 07, 2018 9:40 pm

metaldirtnskin wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
flyoregon wrote:
If Alaska wants to give Portland the middle finger, I'm sure another airline would jump in.

Portland is in a precarious position with Alaska. Totally dependent. Their dominance keeps other airlines from taking many chances here. Also, the fact they don’t fly to Asia or Europe has attracted Delta to provide some international routes, but they have a less than 100% commitment to Portland because of their focus on SEA and SLC. When Alaska shifts focus to California etc. and other airlines don’t step up, we stall. When Horizon experiences a pilot shortage, it has resulted in contraction of flights and routes at PDX. As for the port, they don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm for route development that some other airports have.

It's the "other airlines not stepping up" part that I find interesting. I pay closer attention to EUG than PDX simply because I live here - but the difference is that we're seeing double-digit growth year over year, and others (UA, DL, AA) are taking all of it, while AS/QX remains flat at best. Similar things are happening in MFR from what I can tell.

With PDX being a much larger market, I'm confused about why other carriers are not jumping in to eat AS's lunch there too.

WN has made some adds (starting SFO, ONT, STL; going to 6x to SJC). Reno is trying to get them back on RNO-PDX, RNO-SEA https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2017/06/ ... 372094001/. I'm surprised they didn't jump back in with the QX problems last year but I guess they just didn't have the capacity with the 733 retirements.

FA9295 · Mon May 07, 2018 9:50 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
metaldirtnskin wrote:
jbpdx wrote:

Portland is in a precarious position with Alaska. Totally dependent. Their dominance keeps other airlines from taking many chances here. Also, the fact they don’t fly to Asia or Europe has attracted Delta to provide some international routes, but they have a less than 100% commitment to Portland because of their focus on SEA and SLC. When Alaska shifts focus to California etc. and other airlines don’t step up, we stall. When Horizon experiences a pilot shortage, it has resulted in contraction of flights and routes at PDX. As for the port, they don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm for route development that some other airports have.

It's the "other airlines not stepping up" part that I find interesting. I pay closer attention to EUG than PDX simply because I live here - but the difference is that we're seeing double-digit growth year over year, and others (UA, DL, AA) are taking all of it, while AS/QX remains flat at best. Similar things are happening in MFR from what I can tell.

With PDX being a much larger market, I'm confused about why other carriers are not jumping in to eat AS's lunch there too.

WN has made some adds (starting SFO, ONT, STL; going to 6x to SJC). Reno is trying to get them back on RNO-PDX, RNO-SEA https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2017/06/ ... 372094001/. I'm surprised they didn't jump back in with the QX problems last year but I guess they just didn't have the capacity with the 733 retirements.

That article was published back in June 2017. I doubt that RNO-PDX on WN is coming anytime soon. I've also heard interest (albeit, around a year ago) about them wanting to bring back GEG-SEA and GEG-PDX.

ucdtim17 · Mon May 07, 2018 10:15 pm

FA9295 wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:
metaldirtnskin wrote:

It's the "other airlines not stepping up" part that I find interesting. I pay closer attention to EUG than PDX simply because I live here - but the difference is that we're seeing double-digit growth year over year, and others (UA, DL, AA) are taking all of it, while AS/QX remains flat at best. Similar things are happening in MFR from what I can tell.

With PDX being a much larger market, I'm confused about why other carriers are not jumping in to eat AS's lunch there too.

WN has made some adds (starting SFO, ONT, STL; going to 6x to SJC). Reno is trying to get them back on RNO-PDX, RNO-SEA https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2017/06/ ... 372094001/. I'm surprised they didn't jump back in with the QX problems last year but I guess they just didn't have the capacity with the 733 retirements.

That article was published back in June 2017. I doubt that RNO-PDX on WN is coming anytime soon. I've also heard interest (albeit, around a year ago) about them wanting to bring back GEG-SEA and GEG-PDX.

Not current but not that old. As I said, whether or not WN wants to do the route, they haven't had the slack in the fleet in the past year. They'll have more opportunities for expansion going forward. RNO-PDX maybe not probable, but certainly possible.

jbpdx · Mon May 07, 2018 11:51 pm

A few more observations: The last thing PDX needs—more flights to California. WN needs to boost their hubs, focus cities: launching unserved PDX-BNA, going year round to BWI etc. Why go PDX-SFO with <60% LF? JetBlue should add unserved FLL. NK should think about unserved/underserved routes not add to already shaky ones (DTW). They did add a 2nd to LAS, which was needed.

Btw, as for Delta, they only added the sketchy PDX-LHR service (4x/week, 5-month seasonal) to keep BA out and also protect the AMS route. Remember, they announced it a year ahead of launch.

flyoregon · Tue May 08, 2018 12:11 am

BA needs to grow a pair and launch PDX. They’ll beat DL on the route with year round service no doubt.

pdxav8r · Tue May 08, 2018 2:41 am

FA9295 wrote:
metaldirtnskin wrote:
jbpdx wrote:

Portland is in a precarious position with Alaska. Totally dependent. Their dominance keeps other airlines from taking many chances here. Also, the fact they don’t fly to Asia or Europe has attracted Delta to provide some international routes, but they have a less than 100% commitment to Portland because of their focus on SEA and SLC. When Alaska shifts focus to California etc. and other airlines don’t step up, we stall. When Horizon experiences a pilot shortage, it has resulted in contraction of flights and routes at PDX. As for the port, they don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm for route development that some other airports have.

It's the "other airlines not stepping up" part that I find interesting. I pay closer attention to EUG than PDX simply because I live here - but the difference is that we're seeing double-digit growth year over year, and others (UA, DL, AA) are taking all of it, while AS/QX remains flat at best. Similar things are happening in MFR from what I can tell.

With PDX being a much larger market, I'm confused about why other carriers are not jumping in to eat AS's lunch there too.

Like UA adding PDX-LAX and EUG-LAX. Don't know why they think RDM and MFR would perform "better" than PDX and EUG.

EUG already has two airlines working the route, American and Allegiant. UA prefers to route flights through SFO, their biggest west coast hub, offering more connectivity than LAX. When UA flew PDX-LAX the last few years of its existence, it was strictly CRJ’s. Should tell you something. It’s like people screaming for AS to fly PDX-DEN. Too saturated. Both airlines pick their battles, regardless of if it hurts local FF loyalists.

FA9295 · Tue May 08, 2018 2:59 am

pdxav8r wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
metaldirtnskin wrote:

It's the "other airlines not stepping up" part that I find interesting. I pay closer attention to EUG than PDX simply because I live here - but the difference is that we're seeing double-digit growth year over year, and others (UA, DL, AA) are taking all of it, while AS/QX remains flat at best. Similar things are happening in MFR from what I can tell.

With PDX being a much larger market, I'm confused about why other carriers are not jumping in to eat AS's lunch there too.

Like UA adding PDX-LAX and EUG-LAX. Don't know why they think RDM and MFR would perform "better" than PDX and EUG.

EUG already has two airlines working the route, American and Allegiant. UA prefers to route flights through SFO, their biggest west coast hub, offering more connectivity than LAX. When UA flew PDX-LAX the last few years of its existence, it was strictly CRJ’s. Should tell you something. It’s like people screaming for AS to fly PDX-DEN. Too saturated. Both airlines pick their battles, regardless of if it hurts local FF loyalists.

SEA-DEN is much more saturated than PDX-DEN is. Not saying that SEA-DEN isn't warranted on AS, but if they can run up to 6x daily 737 SEA-DEN flights, then they can easily run 3x daily E175 PDX-DEN flights.

Also, SEA-LAX is almost double the capacity that PDX-LAX is. Talk about major saturation... UA would do just fine with 2x daily PDX-LAX.

pdxav8r · Tue May 08, 2018 3:23 am

FA9295 wrote:
pdxav8r wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
Like UA adding PDX-LAX and EUG-LAX. Don't know why they think RDM and MFR would perform "better" than PDX and EUG.

EUG already has two airlines working the route, American and Allegiant. UA prefers to route flights through SFO, their biggest west coast hub, offering more connectivity than LAX. When UA flew PDX-LAX the last few years of its existence, it was strictly CRJ’s. Should tell you something. It’s like people screaming for AS to fly PDX-DEN. Too saturated. Both airlines pick their battles, regardless of if it hurts local FF loyalists.

SEA-DEN is much more saturated than PDX-DEN is. Not saying that SEA-DEN isn't warranted on AS, but if they can run up to 6x daily 737 SEA-DEN flights, then they can easily run 3x daily E175 PDX-DEN flights.

Also, SEA-LAX is almost double the capacity that PDX-LAX is. Talk about major saturation... UA would do just fine with 2x daily PDX-LAX.

SEA is the AS fortress hub. No comparison. Why would AS or UA stick a couple of flights on these routes, and bleed money? They both have figured there is more money to be made using those planes to fly other routes. It is what planners and schedulers get paid to do. Not satisfy armchair airline execs. Everybody would love those routes, but it currently doesn’t make business sense for them, or they would.

pdxav8r · Tue May 08, 2018 3:35 am

pdxav8r wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
pdxav8r wrote:

EUG already has two airlines working the route, American and Allegiant. UA prefers to route flights through SFO, their biggest west coast hub, offering more connectivity than LAX. When UA flew PDX-LAX the last few years of its existence, it was strictly CRJ’s. Should tell you something. It’s like people screaming for AS to fly PDX-DEN. Too saturated. Both airlines pick their battles, regardless of if it hurts local FF loyalists.

SEA-DEN is much more saturated than PDX-DEN is. Not saying that SEA-DEN isn't warranted on AS, but if they can run up to 6x daily 737 SEA-DEN flights, then they can easily run 3x daily E175 PDX-DEN flights.

Also, SEA-LAX is almost double the capacity that PDX-LAX is. Talk about major saturation... UA would do just fine with 2x daily PDX-LAX.

SEA is the AS fortress hub. No comparison. Why would AS or UA stick a couple of flights on these routes, and bleed money? They both have figured there is more money to be made using those planes to fly other routes. It is what planners and schedulers get paid to do. Not satisfy armchair airline execs. Everybody would love those routes, but it currently doesn’t make business sense for them, or they would. AS brought back MCO, but hasn’t brought back DEN. Maybe down the road they will. What is impressive, is that DL has upgauged a lot of their LAX service from E-jets to mainline planes. AA has maintained E75’s, no mainline, and LAX is their biggest west coast hub (Pacific region, Oceania, Asia).

FA9295 · Tue May 08, 2018 3:55 am

pdxav8r wrote:
pdxav8r wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
SEA-DEN is much more saturated than PDX-DEN is. Not saying that SEA-DEN isn't warranted on AS, but if they can run up to 6x daily 737 SEA-DEN flights, then they can easily run 3x daily E175 PDX-DEN flights.

Also, SEA-LAX is almost double the capacity that PDX-LAX is. Talk about major saturation... UA would do just fine with 2x daily PDX-LAX.

SEA is the AS fortress hub. No comparison. Why would AS or UA stick a couple of flights on these routes, and bleed money? They both have figured there is more money to be made using those planes to fly other routes. It is what planners and schedulers get paid to do. Not satisfy armchair airline execs. Everybody would love those routes, but it currently doesn’t make business sense for them, or they would. AS brought back MCO, but hasn’t brought back DEN. Maybe down the road they will. What is impressive, is that DL has upgauged a lot of their LAX service from E-jets to mainline planes. AA has maintained E75’s, no mainline, and LAX is their biggest west coast hub (Pacific region, Oceania, Asia).

Yeah, a few years ago when DL converted the majority of their LAX-PDX flights from the E175 to the 717 for the summer months, I was pretty excited to see regular 717 service to PDX. It's also good to see them expanding on this route by occasionally adding in A319s and B738s. What I really can't wait for though, is when DL's brand new Bombardier C-Series jets replace their 717s, and then maybe we'd get to see regular C-Series service on LAX-PDX!

As for AA, I find that they tend to be a lot more conservative with their aircraft choices, even more so than UA, which has occasionally ran mainline aircraft on their SEA-LAX flights. At one point, all five of AA's daily SEA-LAX flights were on mainline aircraft (A319/B738), but now they're using E175s on all five of them, even during the peak summer months...

MatthewDB · Thu May 10, 2018 5:08 am

Anyone know why there was an Antinov 124 next to 28R/10L today?

FA9295 · Thu May 10, 2018 5:35 am

MatthewDB wrote:
Anyone know why there was an Antinov 124 next to 28R/10L today?

Oh yeah, I saw that a couple of days ago as I was driving up the departures drop-off ramp. I Was wondering what that was all about...

I found it on flightaware: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VDA ... /KPAE/KPDX

Unfortunately, it doesn't give us very much information to go off of...

twincommander · Thu May 10, 2018 10:57 am

MatthewDB wrote:
Anyone know why there was an Antinov 124 next to 28R/10L today?

Ramp space in PDX is cheaper than in PAE...

flyoregon · Thu May 10, 2018 4:34 pm

Travel Oregon recently released numbers of international travelers and where they come from. According to the 2017 Economic Impact Report, the top 12 are as follows:

12. Brazil: 8,100 (22/day)
11. Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg: 12,400 (34/day)
10. France: 13,300 (36/day)
9. Scandinavia: 16,400 (45/day)
8. South Korea: 21,300 (58/day)
7. Mexico: 24,500 (67/day)
6. Australia: 29,200 (80/day)
5. Germany: 34,000 (93/day)
4. United Kingdom: 45,000 (123/day)
3. China: 67,900 (186/day)
2. Japan: 73,100 (200/day)
1. Canada: 581,700 (1,594/day)

With these numbers, Oregon sees 162,300+ from Asia. This of course doesn’t include other Asian countries. That’s approximately 445 people per day coming to the state. With our flight to NRT, we have just 13,200 seats on a nonstop basis.

From Europe, we have 121,100+ visitors breaking down to approximately 332 people per day. For Europe, we have an estimated 37,640 seats available on a nonstop basis.

Disclaimer, this was quick math, so my numbers are probably a little off, but the point is that the numbers from the Economic Impact report show healthily international visitor counts. And these numbers, by the way, are overnight visitors in Oregon. Why is the tourism board of Oregon and of Portland, pushing the Port of Portland for more international connectivity? The traffic is there and I bet if you asked anyone funneling through Seattle, San Francisco, or Los Angeles, they’d say a nonstop would be preferred.

This isn’t anecdotal, this is statistical. Oregon tourism, according to the report, increased 1% over 2016. While not huge, it’s still an increase and will continue to increase as marketing efforts for tourism continue.

You can’t tell me that we couldn’t support year-round service to AMS, LHR, KEF with seasonal to FRA. You can’t convince me that Portland can’t support year-round service to NRT, ICN, and/or a city in China. This, to me, is evidence that the Port of Portland is not focused on attracting the international service the city CAN support.

Source: https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/erry-20 ... rt_m-rpt-2

FA9295 · Thu May 10, 2018 4:45 pm

flyoregon wrote:
Travel Oregon recently released numbers of international travelers and where they come from. According to the 2017 Economic Impact Report, the top 12 are as follows:

12. Brazil: 8,100 (22/day)
11. Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg: 12,400 (34/day)
10. France: 13,300 (36/day)
9. Scandinavia: 16,400 (45/day)
8. South Korea: 21,300 (58/day)
7. Mexico: 24,500 (67/day)
6. Australia: 29,200 (80/day)
5. Germany: 34,000 (93/day)
4. United Kingdom: 45,000 (123/day)
3. China: 67,900 (186/day)
2. Japan: 73,100 (200/day)
1. Canada: 581,700 (1,594/day)

With these numbers, Oregon sees 162,300+ from Asia. This of course doesn’t include other Asian countries. That’s approximately 445 people per day coming to the state. With our flight to NRT, we have just 13,200 seats on a nonstop basis.

From Europe, we have 121,100+ visitors breaking down to approximately 332 people per day. For Europe, we have an estimated 37,640 seats available on a nonstop basis.

Disclaimer, this was quick math, so my numbers are probably a little off, but the point is that the numbers from the Economic Impact report show healthily international visitor counts. And these numbers, by the way, are overnight visitors in Oregon. Why is the tourism board of Oregon and of Portland, pushing the Port of Portland for more international connectivity? The traffic is there and I bet if you asked anyone funneling through Seattle, San Francisco, or Los Angeles, they’d say a nonstop would be preferred.

This isn’t anecdotal, this is statistical. Oregon tourism, according to the report, increased 1% over 2016. While not huge, it’s still an increase and will continue to increase as marketing efforts for tourism continue.

You can’t tell me that we couldn’t support year-round service to AMS, LHR, KEF with seasonal to FRA. You can’t convince me that Portland can’t support year-round service to NRT, ICN, and/or a city in China. This, to me, is evidence that the Port of Portland is not focused on attracting the international service the city CAN support.

Source: https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/erry-20 ... rt_m-rpt-2

Interesting stats. However, I'm a bit confused regarding incoming South Korea pax at 58 per day and from Germany at 96 per day. Does that mean that the amount of passengers originating from airports in South Korea to PDX is 58 and from Germany is 96? Because if that's really the case, then ICN-PDX could only support a 58 pax aircraft (on average) if if the service were ran daily and FRA-PDX could only support a 96 pax aircraft (on average) if the service was ran daily...

MatthewDB · Fri May 11, 2018 6:29 am

twincommander wrote:
MatthewDB wrote:
Anyone know why there was an Antinov 124 next to 28R/10L today?

Ramp space in PDX is cheaper than in PAE...

That still leaves us completely clueless....

FA9295 · Fri May 11, 2018 2:02 pm

Delta is deploying the 767-400 on DL2565 on ATL-PDX.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL2565
https://www.flightradar24.com/DAL2565/115792ac

jbpdx · Fri May 11, 2018 4:42 pm

FA9295 wrote:
Delta is deploying the 767-400 on DL2565 on ATL-PDX.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL2565
https://www.flightradar24.com/DAL2565/115792ac

Looks like they’re using it Portland-Tokyo too.

FA9295 · Sat May 12, 2018 3:42 am

Apparently United Airlines just announced a huge capacity expansion for routes to/from EWR and IAD. Of course PDX did not make the list...

pnwpdx · Sat May 12, 2018 4:37 am

jbpdx wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
Delta is deploying the 767-400 on DL2565 on ATL-PDX.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL2565
https://www.flightradar24.com/DAL2565/115792ac

Looks like they’re using it Portland-Tokyo too.

Was anyone able to catch a picture of this bird?

jpdx024 · Sat May 12, 2018 5:57 am

I was told they upgauged the aircraft today to ship a bunch of damaged ULD containers. Guess they repair them ATL which makes sense.

pnwpdx · Sat May 12, 2018 1:33 pm

jpdx024 wrote:
I was told they upgauged the aircraft today to ship a bunch of damaged ULD containers. Guess they repair them ATL which makes sense.

Looks like the return flight from NRT was cancelled.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL68

Anyone else notice that Volaris is running day time flights on Saturdays?
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VOI5938
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VOI5939

FA9295 · Sat May 12, 2018 6:21 pm

pnwpdx wrote:
jpdx024 wrote:
I was told they upgauged the aircraft today to ship a bunch of damaged ULD containers. Guess they repair them ATL which makes sense.

Anyone else notice that Volaris is running day time flights on Saturdays?
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VOI5938
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VOI5939

They've been doing that for quite awhile now...

NewtonPDX · Sat May 12, 2018 9:46 pm

pnwpdx wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
Delta is deploying the 767-400 on DL2565 on ATL-PDX.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL2565
https://www.flightradar24.com/DAL2565/115792ac

Looks like they’re using it Portland-Tokyo too.

Was anyone able to catch a picture of this bird?

jbpdx · Sun May 13, 2018 6:34 am

Today they’re sending two flights NRT-PDX: DL 9868, 767-400; and DL 68, 767-300.

jbpdx · Sun May 13, 2018 2:31 pm

Spirit is dropping PDX-DTW seasonal, which just started on 23 April. Maybe they’ll find success by picking an unserved route.

FA9295 · Sun May 13, 2018 6:19 pm

jbpdx wrote:
Spirit is dropping PDX-DTW seasonal, which just started on 23 April. Maybe they’ll find success by picking an unserved route.

From what I've heard overtime, is that PDX is a hit-or-miss market for most airlines. It either turns out to be very successful for them, or it performs very poorly, hence, why PDX apparently tends to be a seasonal market.

Spirit's performance at PDX, quite frankly, has been an embarrassment all around, and Frontier doesn't fall far from the tree, being that they sometimes only have 1x daily to DEN which departs from PDX just after midnight!

It's a shame that they can't make PDX work out.

jbpdx · Sun May 13, 2018 7:30 pm

Las Vegas is probably doing fine for Spirit. They should have added PDX-BNA instead of DTW. Southwest and Alaska are procrastinating so there’s still time. Nashville would be a new destination for them though.

BoeingGuy · Sun May 13, 2018 7:46 pm

FA9295 wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
Spirit is dropping PDX-DTW seasonal, which just started on 23 April. Maybe they’ll find success by picking an unserved route.

From what I've heard overtime, is that PDX is a hit-or-miss market for most airlines. It either turns out to be very successful for them, or it performs very poorly, hence, why PDX apparently tends to be a seasonal market.

Spirit's performance at PDX, quite frankly, has been an embarrassment all around, and Frontier doesn't fall far from the tree, being that they sometimes only have 1x daily to DEN which departs from PDX just after midnight!

It's a shame that they can't make PDX work out.

Maybe the PDX market is too sophisticated for 28” seat pitch and other nicities of flying Spirit.

What you say is interesting though. I’ve never understood why BA doesn’t start PDX, along with NH or JL. Maybe BA wouldn’t be as successful in PDX as I assumed they would.

jbpdx · Sun May 13, 2018 10:04 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
I’ve never understood why BA doesn’t start PDX, along with NH or JL. Maybe BA wouldn’t be as successful in PDX as I assumed they would.

BA waited too long and ceded the route to Delta, although their commitment remains sketchy.

Interesting on Flightview, in late August when AA furloughs PDX-PHL a flight is listed as British Airways operating that route.

kon · Mon May 14, 2018 3:01 am

jbpdx wrote:
Spirit is dropping PDX-DTW seasonal, which just started on 23 April. Maybe they’ll find success by picking an unserved route.

Hopefully this means AS can maintain this route alongside DL, two carriers seem like the right amount here, in terms of sustainability. It would be a shame to see them drop off so soon.

pdxav8r · Mon May 14, 2018 3:02 am

FA9295 wrote:
jbpdx wrote:
Spirit is dropping PDX-DTW seasonal, which just started on 23 April. Maybe they’ll find success by picking an unserved route.

From what I've heard overtime, is that PDX is a hit-or-miss market for most airlines. It either turns out to be very successful for them, or it performs very poorly, hence, why PDX apparently tends to be a seasonal market.

Spirit's performance at PDX, quite frankly, has been an embarrassment all around, and Frontier doesn't fall far from the tree, being that they sometimes only have 1x daily to DEN which departs from PDX just after midnight!

It's a shame that they can't make PDX work out.

Pretty much sums it up. DL, by way of merging with NW, left a lot of us with miles to use on DL, whom were NW loyalists, or had their US Bank Worldperks card. That, and the international network DL monopolizes at PDX. UA has historically had a pretty big presence at PDX, and began the first non-stop to NRT. At one point they had over 48 departures, with wide bodies mixed in. AS goes without saying. And SW has a ton of routes/flights out of PDX, have been solid for many years now. I’m not really going out on a limb to say any other airline would be challenged at PDX. Loyalty goes deep with many PDX’ers on these four heavy hitters here. Not stating I speak for many, but I’m going to pay more, to fly these airlines/routes, than for LLC’s, and continue my mileage accrual. I’m never going to book a ticket on a carrier, that I can’t trust to even fly the route 4 months down the road. Freaking joke. I’m in a different position than a lot of people looking to book flights, so my mentality is not the norm. But these transient carriers, and their effed up on again/off again schedules and routes, I steer clear of. There are always going to be bargain basement shoppers, but PDX probably doesn’t have enough of them to satisfy the complete LLC wish list. I’m good with their constant dart board tactics, I just won’t ever have any part of it. If they pack up and leave tomorrow, good riddance.

FA9295 · Mon May 14, 2018 4:41 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
I’ve never understood why BA doesn’t start PDX, along with NH or JL. Maybe BA wouldn’t be as successful in PDX as I assumed they would.

I think BA would do so much better on PDX-LHR then Delta/Virgin would. It would allow for a sufficient gateway to Africa and the Middle East. I was hoping that when Air France announced resumption of service to SEA that Delta would open up a summer seasonal PDX-CDG route, similar to what happened when Virgin announced their service to SEA and Delta opened up a summer seasonal PDX-LHR route. CDG seems like a much better option for a Delta route to/from PDX because their alliance with Air France (and KLM at AMS) is much stronger than it is with Virgin.

The Delta/Virgin pact at LHR doesn't allow for very many connections, if any at all. Most of the passengers are just O&D traffic to London, which in itself wouldn't be so bad, but because PDX isn't a hub for Delta, the passengers are solely coming from PDX, which in summary, is pretty much the recipe for a terrible overall load factor. I think Virgin's only main connections through LHR are to Delhi, Dubai, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, Lagos, and Shanghai. And I'm not even sure if Delta has codeshare agreements on any of those routes, not to mention that nobody is going to connect through LHR to get to China from PDX, because that's just plain stupid. British Airways can offer so much more for originating PDX travelers and the traffic would only be that much greater...

FA9295 · Mon May 14, 2018 5:30 am

Going to go on a long rant here.............

So here's a question. Why do airlines that serve PDX always feel like they have to run red-eye flights out of the airport? What good is that going to serve them? The only true benefit that I see out of it would be legacy carriers running routes such as Delta's red-eye flights to some of their main hubs, like MSP, DTW, ATL and JFK. That way, the passengers would arrive at one of those airports around 6 or 7 in the morning, while their next flight out to their final destination at any of those hubs departs at, say 8 or 9 in the morning, making for very easy, smooth and convenient connections.

However, for non-legacy airlines, such as Alaska, who's traffic is probably more than 95% O&D to/from PDX, there's absolutely no point for red-eye flights. Sure, they may have partner airlines/codeshare agreements with foreign airlines such as, Aer Lingus, British Airways, Emirates, and/or Hainan but most of those flights still depart from the U.S. in the late afternoon/early evening hours anyway, and with a red-eye flight from, say PDX to BOS on JetBlue. Said JetBlue red-eye flight from PDX lands at BOS at 8:22 AM. One of JetBlue's main partner airlines, Emirates, whose flight from BOS to DXB leaves at 11:10 PM. Obviously nobody is going to want a 15 hour layover no matter how much money one might save.

Lots of Alaska's seasonal flights to/from PDX are red-eye flights. MKE used to be one of those, but Alaska only recently changed it to a mid-afternoon departure/late-night arrival at MKE. Based on Alaska's business model, specifically at their PDX "hub" (which is more like a small focus city at this point), most, if not all of the traffic is going to be O&D, so it would be the most logical, in my opinion, to schedule the flights to actually depart from PDX at a reasonable time. Alaska's flights from PDX to ATL, DTW, and PHL are all red-eye's. With the loyalty O&D traffic that Alaska has, I bet that these flights would be much more successful as morning departures from PDX instead of red-eye flights.

As for ULCC carriers, such as F9 or NK, the problem gets even worse. Both F9 and NK absolutely love red-eye flights. Spirit's route from SEA to DTW is very successful, even with ten other flights from SEA to DTW, Why is it that NK can make a flight to DTW work from SEA and not from PDX? It's obviously because the flight actually departs SEA at a reasonable time. Why don't they at least try an earlier departure from PDX? The route is already not doing well, so they really have nothing to lose here, maybe other than the potential overnight RON, in which Spirit would instead want to keep the aircraft in the air for as long as they can.

And what's with Frontier's single PDX-DEN flight that departs at 12:55 AM and arrives at DEN at 4:32 AM. Who in their right mind is going to take that flight? I sure would choose United or Southwest in a heartbeat if it cost me a ton more money...

nmraja · Mon May 14, 2018 5:38 am

DL's PDX-LHR flight has some more connections to India, especially BOM and DEL thru 9W. I agree that a PDX-CDG-PDX flight will have better connections due to ST alliance options. I hope it happens soon. I had the same hope when AF announced SEA, but PDX got nothing after that.

Airnerd · Mon May 14, 2018 1:35 pm

FA9295 wrote:
Going to go on a long rant here.............

So here's a question. Why do airlines that serve PDX always feel like they have to run red-eye flights out of the airport?

Because they have aircraft available at night, but not during the day. It's an easy way to test an unproven route out of PDX by using a plane that otherwise would have just sat on the ground somewhere from 11 p.m. to 6 or 7 a.m. Also, it's the west coast, so travelers are fairly used to red-eyes. But, I agree with you, if there's a daytime flight, I'll pick it every time over the overnighter.

jbpdx · Tue May 15, 2018 5:22 am

When we start to see the number of flights to/from PDX-SEA start to decline (currently ~30/day each way) we’ll start getting more domestic and international nonstops. As long as passengers to/from Portland continue to accept connecting thru Seattle, we’ll get squat. The airline business model of using Portland as part of the SEA catchment area has to be broken by passenger demand.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net