Will Alaska launch service to Asia using A321LR? The order would be easily convertible from VX's A321neo order. The leg from ANC-NRT is only 2,984 nm.

ANC airport could be re-transformed into an intercontinental hub, as it once was.



source: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SEA-ANC-NRT&MS=wls&DU=nm (4,242 nm)
see also: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SEA-NRT&DU=nm (4,144 nm)

I realize AS may eventually acquire 797s that could serve SEA-NRT nonstop, and this would be a stopgap.

Probably an A321LR should be able to do that. I would expect the 737-8 can fly that route as well. Some of the Norwegian Transatlantic 737MAX flights are longer.

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

In the past CO and then UA have flown IAH-ANC with a 737-800. This route is only 167 miles longer than ANC-NRT. This summer the IAH-ANC route will be flown with the -900 MAX which could easily continue to NRT. I feel for this route to work it would either have to be flown by UA or AA to connect to an alliance hub on the Tokyo side.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=kiah-panc-rjaa

If there was any demand for this, I think it would have already been done by DL or something.

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

Perhaps they could, but DL has built up enough feed into SEA to fill widebodies. In the case of ANC, it would be a much smaller operation.

As an aside, Anchorage's metro area population is about twice that of Reykjavik's metro area, which means that it has a better shot at serving a small amount of O&D traffic, in addition to serving as a connecting hub.

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

Theoretically AS has a better feed on each end than DL, with its JL parnership and intra-Alaska network (however minimal that may be)

BWIAirport wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

Theoretically AS has a better feed on each end than DL, with its JL parnership and intra-Alaska network (however minimal that may be)

Besides local feed from Alaska state, AS could use feed from the following routes: Chicago–O'Hare, Los Angeles, Portland (OR), Seattle/Tacoma, Las Vegas, Phoenix–Sky Harbor. They may want to add a few more routes such as SFO/ANC, BOI/ANC, DEN/ANC, YYC/ANC, YEG/ANC, YXF/ANC, etc. to generate feed.

Wouldn’t this technically be a relaunch of service to Asia? Semantics aside, AS has partner airlines that already do the job 1 or nonstop from throughout the AS network. If there was O&D demand someone would already fly the route. The rest of the AS hubs already have 1 stop or nonstop options on partner airlines.

brian415 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

Perhaps they could, but DL has built up enough feed into SEA to fill widebodies. In the case of ANC, it would be a much smaller operation.

As an aside, Anchorage's metro area population is about twice that of Reykjavik's metro area, which means that it has a better shot at serving a small amount of O&D traffic, in addition to serving as a connecting hub.

Keep convincing yourself AS should do this, rejecting comments from others.

DL could have (still could) easily run a lie-flat 757 into rotation from MSP to run ANC-NRT (and beyond, when DL had more 5th freedom flights), to MNL, BKK, SIN, etc. If there were adequate O&D demand, a flight would exist.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Keep convincing yourself AS should do this, rejecting comments from others.

DL could have (still could) easily run a lie-flat 757 into rotation from MSP to run ANC-NRT (and beyond, when DL had more 5th freedom flights), to MNL, BKK, SIN, etc. If there were adequate O&D demand, a flight would exist.

Thank you your cynicism. My point has more to do with ANC being a potential analogue to KEF but for TPAC instead of TATL travel. Everything that is happening at KEF has defied conventional wisdom. The latest addition has WowAir doing KEF-TLV, a distance of 2,853 nm, its longest route eastbound.

AS already has a hub in ANC. DL does not.

Something like a NRT-ANC-CONUS/COCAN run would only work if AS or whomever flies the route is able to make competitive and beat current fares on nonstop runs currently happening. Could it happen - sure, and using a model that Icelandair/Wow is using in KEF could be a possible model to go off of. Of course AS would have to convert its ANC operations from that of an O&D station to that of a international hub and spoke.

Could it happen? Sure! Why didn't Delta do it now with the 757 operations...because they are playing a different level of game than Alaska Air on this type of market. Could it happen with either the A321LR or Max8? Sure!

Will it happen...now we wait and see.

brian415 wrote:

Besides local feed from Alaska state, AS could use feed from the following routes: Chicago–O'Hare, Los Angeles, Portland (OR), Seattle/Tacoma, Las Vegas, Phoenix–Sky Harbor. They may want to add a few more routes such as SFO/ANC, BOI/ANC, DEN/ANC, YYC/ANC, YEG/ANC, YXF/ANC, etc. to generate feed.

ORD, LAX, PDX, SEA, SFO, YYC, and DEN all have direct flights to NRT. Why would anyone fly DEN-ANC-NRT or any of these other crazy connections when they can just fly DEN-NRT nonstop? And BOI-ANC, which doesn't exist today, needs to be added because of all the Idahoans travelling to Japan every day?

Talk about a "long thin" route...

IPFreely wrote:

brian415 wrote:

Besides local feed from Alaska state, AS could use feed from the following routes: Chicago–O'Hare, Los Angeles, Portland (OR), Seattle/Tacoma, Las Vegas, Phoenix–Sky Harbor. They may want to add a few more routes such as SFO/ANC, BOI/ANC, DEN/ANC, YYC/ANC, YEG/ANC, YXF/ANC, etc. to generate feed.

ORD, LAX, PDX, SEA, SFO, YYC, and DEN all have direct flights to NRT. Why would anyone fly DEN-ANC-NRT or any of these other crazy connections when they can just fly DEN-NRT nonstop? And BOI-ANC, which doesn't exist today, needs to be added because of all the Idahoans travelling to Japan every day?

Price sensitivity. One-stop or connecting flights are often cheaper when priced. Also, some passengers may desire a one or two-night stopover in Anchorage.

Also from a cost-perspective, crew block times may be advantageous because no spare flight crews are required. Two medium haul legs do not require spare flight crews. This is part of the reason why Icelandair and WOWAir do so well, due to low staffing costs.

brian415 wrote:

[My point has more to do with ANC being a potential analogue to KEF but for TPAC instead of TATL travel. Everything that is happening at KEF has defied conventional wisdom.

The difference is range, and politics.

Iceland has Open Skies with the EU, and the US, and is in NB range of the entire European continent, and its rich trove of customers and destinations.
Aside from Japan and Korea, nothing else is immediately open to NB's from ANC. No open skies with China, eliminating even the most northern cities and Vladivostok certainly wouldn't be targeted.

The rest of the demand for Asia travel is simply out of range. HKG, BKK, SIN, MNL, etc. If those were in range, then yes - one could make an argument that ANC could be the KEF of TPAC - but it simply isn't so.

ANC cannot be KEF.

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

with 25%+ reduction in seat mile cost the A321neo case could be made where a 757-200 with the same load would not be efficient.

rbavfan wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

with 25%+ reduction in seat mile cost the A321neo case could be made where a 757-200 with the same load would not be efficient.

Paid off plane vs new plane, big difference.

ANC would require all incoming passengers from Asia to deplane, process customs and replane. That is a big reason we haven't and won't see this. Airlines want to chase the highest yielding traffic. The lower yielding traffic needs to be fed into larger birds, not long thin narrowbody routes. Icelandair is relatively small operation and doesn't have the US Customs requirements.

If AS is going to Asia they are doing it with widebodies.

IPFreely wrote:

brian415 wrote:

Besides local feed from Alaska state, AS could use feed from the following routes: Chicago–O'Hare, Los Angeles, Portland (OR), Seattle/Tacoma, Las Vegas, Phoenix–Sky Harbor. They may want to add a few more routes such as SFO/ANC, BOI/ANC, DEN/ANC, YYC/ANC, YEG/ANC, YXF/ANC, etc. to generate feed.

ORD, LAX, PDX, SEA, SFO, YYC, and DEN all have direct flights to NRT. Why would anyone fly DEN-ANC-NRT or any of these other crazy connections when they can just fly DEN-NRT nonstop? And BOI-ANC, which doesn't exist today, needs to be added because of all the Idahoans travelling to Japan every day?

The same reason that thousands of people connect over KEF to Europe in spite of the fact that there are a plethora of nonstops.

If the 797 ends up being a super efficient 767, I expect someone to do a Europe to Hawaii flight with a stop over in ANC, but that's a far cry from a new international hub.

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

I don't think they have 757.

QXAS wrote:

Wouldn’t this technically be a relaunch of service to Asia? Semantics aside, AS has partner airlines that already do the job 1 or nonstop from throughout the AS network. If there was O&D demand someone would already fly the route. The rest of the AS hubs already have 1 stop or nonstop options on partner airlines.

ikolkyo wrote:

If there was any demand for this, I think it would have already been done by DL or something.

Currently there are quite a bit of charters between Asia and Alaska during especially holiday seasons

brian415 wrote:

My point has more to do with ANC being a potential analogue to KEF but for TPAC instead of TATL travel.

Which means you don't have much of a point, as the parallels only exist in your imagination, and not in any airline's near or foreseeable plans.

brian415 wrote:

Everything that is happening at KEF has defied conventional wisdom.

Whose "conventional wisdom," the bag-lady in the airport parking lot?
FI has used KEF as a transit hub between the continents for decades. Nothing new, or unproven, about it.

brian415 wrote:

Price sensitivity. One-stop or connecting flights are often cheaper when priced.

...which is quite the solid foundation upon which to tie up a new asset for 8hrs+ of use.

brian415 wrote:

Also, some passengers may desire a one or two-night stopover in Anchorage.

Can you introduce us to who these two or three passengers might be? We'd like to meet them.

rbavfan wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

with 25%+ reduction in seat mile cost the A321neo case could be made where a 757-200 with the same load would not be efficient.

Not that any airline would be able to realize anywhere near that extent of cost savings for years on end, as the acquisition cost of a new A32xN would eat right into it, versus a paid 752.

c933103 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

I don't think they have 757.

Either I'm being thick and missing the sarcasm (it's hard to convey tone in text) or you're quite wrong. Doesn't Delta have near enough 100 757 aircraft?

Not that one would be wasted on a route like ANC-NRT.

BlueberryWheats wrote:

c933103 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

I don't think they have 757.

Either I'm being thick and missing the sarcasm (it's hard to convey tone in text) or you're quite wrong. Doesn't Delta have near enough 100 757 aircraft?

Not that one would be wasted on a route like ANC-NRT.

I mean AS. DL of course would not as it would not match the way their hub and spoke model

Wouldn't a ANC-FUK/CTS/KIX/NGO make more sense?
The flights would be fed on the US side from the many airports that have service to ANC and would be a one stop option for the secondary Japanese cities...
NRT/HND are easily reached using existing hubs...

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but winds can be savage NE of Japan. AFAIK some days you're talking 100+kts eastbound.

There is no market for anc to nrt. As for connection, we already have plenty of non stop option to Asia that are really cheap. Unless as wants to charge 400 a ticket from Seattle to Tokyo with a stopover in anc, they are not gaining any traction here.

PHBVF wrote:

Wouldn't a ANC-FUK/CTS/KIX/NGO make more sense?
The flights would be fed on the US side from the many airports that have service to ANC and would be a one stop option for the secondary Japanese cities...
NRT/HND are easily reached using existing hubs...

Still Tokyo probably have larger O&D to Alaska?

tphuang wrote:

There is no market for anc to nrt. As for connection, we already have plenty of non stop option to Asia that are really cheap. Unless as wants to charge 400 a ticket from Seattle to Tokyo with a stopover in anc, they are not gaining any traction here.

The flight length of NE Asia - ANC can be compared to some 737 TATL routes and ANC-USAairports can be compared to some traditional LCC routes which I think it might enable an LCC to operate in the scene and offer LCC fare to passengers traveling via ANC TPAC? Of course AS most likely will not be interested in doing so

One of the arguments for passengers wanting to connect in ANC is that lower fares can be had for connections vs non stops (why that would be attractive to a non-LCC to offer, I don’t know). But aren’t fares to Asia from the US/Canada generally in the toilet?

A couple years ago I was able to get a Y round trip for under $1,000. I also keep reading about fares under $800, or even lower (good for mileage runs if you need to top up on status). How much lower can the fares go, and how will that pay for an airplane and flight from ANC to Asia?

Getting back to the original question, I world personally love for AS to open a route began ANC and any partner airline hub in Asia. However, with the merger, it will be a long time before the opportunity cost of not using aircraft to optimise the traffic in and out of their new formerly VX gates allows the airline to focus on anything else.

Perhaps, if we're really good, Santa well move one of the A321s.to give us a direct flight from ANC to New York or Baltimore.

hOMSaR wrote:

One of the arguments for passengers wanting to connect in ANC is that lower fares can be had for connections vs non stops (why that would be attractive to a non-LCC to offer, I don’t know). But aren’t fares to Asia from the US/Canada generally in the toilet?

A couple years ago I was able to get a Y round trip for under $1,000. I also keep reading about fares under $800, or even lower (good for mileage runs if you need to top up on status). How much lower can the fares go, and how will that pay for an airplane and flight from ANC to Asia?

From West Coast (LAX/SFO/SEA) to China or even HKG, Y RT fares can be as low as 400-500. And yes, they're non-stop. There are a few posters here that mentioned those $2000 business-class RT tickets on CN3 also, although I've yet to find any.

FlyHappy wrote:

brian415 wrote:

[My point has more to do with ANC being a potential analogue to KEF but for TPAC instead of TATL travel. Everything that is happening at KEF has defied conventional wisdom.

The difference is range, and politics.

Iceland has Open Skies with the EU, and the US, and is in NB range of the entire European continent, and its rich trove of customers and destinations.
Aside from Japan and Korea, nothing else is immediately open to NB's from ANC. No open skies with China, eliminating even the most northern cities and Vladivostok certainly wouldn't be targeted.

The rest of the demand for Asia travel is simply out of range. HKG, BKK, SIN, MNL, etc. If those were in range, then yes - one could make an argument that ANC could be the KEF of TPAC - but it simply isn't so.

ANC cannot be KEF.

And I would say this is the main problem. From KEF you can pretty much served the entire US (except LAX/SFO) and as far east as Russia on the European side with existing A320/A321. Even in totally ideal situation, from ANC you're talking about Northern China, Japan, and South Korea. Southern China? No-go. SE Asia? Don't even think about it.

Using GCMap with 4000nmi range from ANC:


And quite frankly, even places like Shanghai are on the edge of the leg of the theoretical A321LR. Any headwind (and that's like, well, everyday) westbound and you're looking at a fuel stop at Tokyo (or Pyongyang just for the lower operating cost )

brian415 wrote:

Price sensitivity. One-stop or connecting flights are often cheaper when priced. Also, some passengers may desire a one or two-night stopover in Anchorage.

Also from a cost-perspective, crew block times may be advantageous because no spare flight crews are required. Two medium haul legs do not require spare flight crews. This is part of the reason why Icelandair and WOWAir do so well, due to low staffing costs.

Nobody is going to put expensive assets on routes that are expensive to operate in order to capture the portion of the market that wants to pay less than the lowest prices today. The reason ANC was ever something of a "hub" for trans-Pacific flying decades ago had nothing to do with it's location and everything to do with the range of aircraft at that time. It's not needed today. Today UA (with ANA) and AA (with JAL) use Tokyo as a hub for connections to Asia. DL (with KE) uses Seoul as a hub for connections to Asia and is struggling to be relevant in the Pacific. As others have posted, prices are already low so why would AS (with no Asian feed) want to try to capture just the bottom feeder prices in an already low priced market? The whole premise is crazy which is why it's not happening.

ANC-NRT ESAD is roughly 3600nm using the 85% headwind probability figure. Easily within the estimated 4000nm range.
ANC-PEK is around 3810nm ESAD during the most challenging headwind months.
ANC-ICN is ~3810nm.
ANC-PVG is 4330nm ESAD so it would only be feasible with a better SFC outcome or a lower density configuration.

brian415 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

Perhaps they could, but DL has built up enough feed into SEA to fill widebodies. In the case of ANC, it would be a much smaller operation.

As an aside, Anchorage's metro area population is about twice that of Reykjavik's metro area, which means that it has a better shot at serving a small amount of O&D traffic, in addition to serving as a connecting hub.

Are they the type of people likely to fly to Japan, though ? Honest question, the only Alaskans I know of have Palin as a last name...

Aesma wrote:

Are they the type of people likely to fly to Japan, though ? Honest question, the only Alaskans I know of have Palin as a last name...

Aw, man? Why ya gotta be like that?

Kidding aside, Alaska ranks 40th in the states for experts, which is not high, but given our population does indicate that it is a pretty major part of our economy. Much of that is raw ore, but it does include just south of 10% of all US seafood exports.

Oddly, Canada is our fourth largest international trading partner, and a distant fourth after China, Japan and South Korea. We have large (By percentages) Korean and Filipino communities, and in the winter we live for the chance to get warm. AS does well flying us to Hawaii and Costa Rica, but we do a lot of TPAC flights to Indonesia and New Zealand.

There are not a lot of us, but what is here does a lot of business with the Western Pacific.

zakuivcustom wrote:

From West Coast (LAX/SFO/SEA) to China or even HKG, Y RT fares can be as low as 400-500. And yes, they're non-stop. There are a few posters here that mentioned those $2000 business-class RT tickets on CN3 also, although I've yet to find any.

Agree. AS might get better fares on flights from the lower 48 to ANC than they would lower 48 to Asia via ANC. I don’t see ANC ever resuming its status at a major stopover point to Asia and I don’t think AS wants to start trashing their yields.

If AS ever starts ANC-Japan, it’ll be to serve local traffic on either end, not to operate as a scissor hub. End of story.

That said...AS has more than enough on its hands with the VX digestion at the moment. I actually think JL would be more likely, if it ever happened.

Chugach wrote:

If AS ever starts ANC-Japan, it’ll be to serve local traffic on either end, not to operate as a scissor hub. End of story.

That said...AS has more than enough on its hands with the VX digestion at the moment. I actually think JL would be more likely, if it ever happened.

I don't think they have any narrowbody in the fleet now or on order that can do the range...? Seems like they usually use 767 or 777 for Alaska charter although other airlines use 737 with refueling stop at e.g. PKC.

JAL operated following charter flights to Alaska in 2012 summer season with 222 seats 763 or 232 seats 772:
0526 FUK-ANC-NRT
0608 NGO-ANC-KIX
0623 OKA-ANC-MYJ
0721 FUK-ANC-NRT
0726 ANC-FUK
0812 KIX-ANC
0817 NGO-ANC-KIX
0822 NRT-FAI-NGO
0824 NGO-ANC
0827 NGO-ANC-NRT
0829 FUK-NIJ-FAI-NGO
0901 NRT-FAI-NGO
0906 KIX-ANC-NRT
0911 NRT-FAI-KIX
0915 KOJ-ANC-OKJ
0916 KIX-ANC-NRT
0921 FUK-FAI-KIX
0926 FAI-FUK
However in recent years they seems to have cut back these summer charter to Alaska by quite a bit with only a total of three R/T from NRT to ANC this sunmer

Aesma wrote:

brian415 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

Perhaps they could, but DL has built up enough feed into SEA to fill widebodies. In the case of ANC, it would be a much smaller operation.

As an aside, Anchorage's metro area population is about twice that of Reykjavik's metro area, which means that it has a better shot at serving a small amount of O&D traffic, in addition to serving as a connecting hub.

Are they the type of people likely to fly to Japan, though ? Honest question, the only Alaskans I know of have Palin as a last name...

I know a lot of skiers in anchorage that go to Japan to ski. Enough to fill a plane? Hell no. But combine that with the Asians that want to bang under the northern lights and you could maybe have twice a week flights.

I too doubt ANC would ever become a scissor hub connecting North America to Asia. I just want to jump in and remind folks that there is demand for flights from Japan to Alaska during the winter for northern lights tourism (aurora borealis). And during the summer there are of course, the cruise and package tour industry which is huge. Now I doubt Alaska would ever be interested in any of this market. But there is some* potential out there if they wanted to dip their toes into the water.

32andBelow wrote:

the Asians that want to bang under the northern lights

I am unfamiliar with this Aviation terminology.

Tourism can fill some of these flight in the summer. Could work. Condor flies 767 from Fra and the Japanisch could love a few days in Alaska.

Northwest actually had seasonal flights ANC-NRT and return on a very infrequent schedule (1 or 2 flights a week) in 1998. After one year, they abruptly dropped it...no yield. They were using a DC-10.

A while back I thought AS should explore the possibility of a TPAC hub with premium heavy (if not premium only) smaller aircraft (737MAX, A321LR, 797). There is certainly a demand for lower price J class to Asia and they could offer an inferior J hard product (similar to their new F which they will compete with on JFK-LAX) in a more dense cabin which would prevent competitors from price matching them. For markets with no nonstop service to Asia, ANC would be an ideal connect point since no one flight would be more than approximately 7-8 hours, which is another reason they could get away with not having total lie flat seating. If AS ever decided to do something like this, I am sure ANC would totally accommodate them to allow for smooth connections. I also think AS would have to market whatever terminal they build as a spa like experience for J travellers to entice premium passenger to want to connect midway.

FlyHappy wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

the Asians that want to bang under the northern lights

I am unfamiliar with this Aviation terminology.

Go to Chena hot springs in February and you’ll understand.

Hello all!

Long time lurker, first time poster. Growing up in Fairbanks, and now living in Anchorage, this is something I’ve wondered about for a while. Not necessarily with AS, but with anyone willing to try it, I’ve wondered if ANC-Japan would be feasible seasonally December-March, once or twice weekly with a narrowbody that has the legs.

Someone earlier up the thread listed all the charters that happened in years past. I remember a few years ago, various Japanese tour groups like AIE chartering from JAL who brought if I remember correctly one winter brought 18 flights to FAI I think? Many of them with a 747. Then as JAL was going through financial troubles, they started to reduce the number of charters. In more recent years, these tour groups have diversified out chartering from JAL, ANA, and even Uzbekistan Airways flying Japan-FAI. Every time these flights came into Fairbanks, to my knowledge they were almost always full.

http://www.akbizmag.com/Travel/UPDATE-A ... Fairbanks/

It always was kind of sad that here are all these nonstop flights to Japan, but I couldn’t get on one because they were charters.

My overall question is, if these flights are somewhat regular, and they are 767/ 787s, why can’t a regularly seasonal twice weekly flight NRT-ANC with feed to elsewhere in Alaska on a narrowbody be sustainable? Especially if the tour groups are occasionally having difficult times organizing charters?

Northwest actually had such a flight between 1998 and 2001, with 1 to 2 weekly summer only seasonal service, on DC10 and 747-200.

I don't think there is a NRT-ANC market year-round. But the Japanese tourist market to Alaska is pretty strong and consistent during the summer months. It could work with an A321 2-3/weekly between early June and late Sep.

airzona11 wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If this made sense delta could do it today with a 757.

with 25%+ reduction in seat mile cost the A321neo case could be made where a 757-200 with the same load would not be efficient.

Paid off plane vs new plane, big difference.

ANC would require all incoming passengers from Asia to deplane, process customs and replane. That is a big reason we haven't and won't see this. Airlines want to chase the highest yielding traffic. The lower yielding traffic needs to be fed into larger birds, not long thin narrowbody routes. Icelandair is relatively small operation and doesn't have the US Customs requirements.

If AS is going to Asia they are doing it with widebodies.

You also need to look at Hawaiians comments that the A321neo cost per seat for them is low enough to allow 2 A321neo to replace a A332 and be cheaper to operate. So paid off is cheap until they get to a certain age and require much increase in maintenance. Delta's 757 are close to or exceeded that point. As fewer ae around that cost will increase.

afcjets wrote:

A while back I thought AS should explore the possibility of a TPAC hub with premium heavy (if not premium only) smaller aircraft (737MAX, A321LR, 797). There is certainly a demand for lower price J class to Asia and they could offer an inferior J hard product (similar to their new F which they will compete with on JFK-LAX) in a more dense cabin which would prevent competitors from price matching them. For markets with no nonstop service to Asia, ANC would be an ideal connect point since no one flight would be more than approximately 7-8 hours, which is another reason they could get away with not having total lie flat seating. If AS ever decided to do something like this, I am sure ANC would totally accommodate them to allow for smooth connections. I also think AS would have to market whatever terminal they build as a spa like experience for J travellers to entice premium passenger to want to connect midway.

With that product you would be competing against PE non-stops, not J.

rbavfan wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

with 25%+ reduction in seat mile cost the A321neo case could be made where a 757-200 with the same load would not be efficient.

Paid off plane vs new plane, big difference.

ANC would require all incoming passengers from Asia to deplane, process customs and replane. That is a big reason we haven't and won't see this. Airlines want to chase the highest yielding traffic. The lower yielding traffic needs to be fed into larger birds, not long thin narrowbody routes. Icelandair is relatively small operation and doesn't have the US Customs requirements.

If AS is going to Asia they are doing it with widebodies.

You also need to look at Hawaiians comments that the A321neo cost per seat for them is low enough to allow 2 A321neo to replace a A332 and be cheaper to operate. So paid off is cheap until they get to a certain age and require much increase in maintenance. Delta's 757 are close to or exceeded that point. As fewer ae around that cost will increase.

Not doubting that, but that is apples and oranges here. The point being, if there was an untapped market for the long and thin routes, an airline with depreciated 757s could have jumped on the route. Hawaiian is going after O/D, not connecting traffic, which is more valuable. Flying a narrowbody on long routes filled with connecting traffic is not a high margin game and not something to deploy expensive new planes on.