crescent wrote:

I have to think asking for some flights from PAE was mostly a leverage point to get AS to give up some DAL slots.

Except it hasn't happened. So, there's that...

stratclub wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

stratclub wrote:

Good news. Would be even better if they flew to SEA and YVR as well.

Fly from PAE to SEA and YVR?

Mostly because of where I live and then there would be how much easier check in would be compared to SEA. Check in at a small airport like PAE fly to SEA for your connecting flight. PAE would be just a much better point to drop into the air travel system at for me compared to SEA or Vancouver BC.

Maybe extend the runways and just abort the takeoffs when you arrive at the other airport. The point of this is to give people on the north side of downtown Seattle to have a more convenient option to fly out.

Excited about this since I live about 20 minutes away. I wonder about possible expansion assuming this goes well for AS ( which I have to assume it will).

madpropsyo wrote:

SLCUT2777 wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

BFI will never happen again.

Let's hope you're right, since WN would turn BFI into another DAL or MDW very quickly. PAE isn't governed by King County or the Port Authority of Seattle at least.

With what land? There's no way they could do much more than what's happening at PAE, BFI is already bursting at the seams. Not to mention BFI doesn't have any CAT II or III approaches so the reliability would be below that of SEA and PAE.

Fun fact:

SeaTac terminal, including the international terminal and the parking garage, but excluding the north satellite: 3500' x 2000'

Paine Field east ramp area, from the Boeing property line at the north to the ATS ramp to the south, and from 1000' from the west runway centerline to 1000' from the east runway centerline: 3500' x 1800'

This area has a crosswind runway that has been closed for almost a decade. There is also general aviation hangars and several businesses, but none of those would be impossible to relocate if there were enough demand to cover the costs (including stormwater mitigation) of relocating to the west side.

But that's not even remotely on the table at the time. I'm just throwing it out there to clarify there actually is a fair amount of room at Paine Field that could be re-arranged if a huge amount of demand were to materialize.

As a more realistic look at what might happen in the next 2-3 decades, from approximate measurements I've made, I think there is room to expand the current 2-gate terminal to 4-gates in the space between the tower and existing buildings to the south. If continuing further, a dogleg due north at the tower could fit potentially 6 more gates up to the edge of Boeing's property.

If I've linked it right, below you should see a composite layout I've shared before that helps illustrate roughly what I'm talking about. It is the terminal layout taken from county permit filings overlaid on Google aerial imagery. You may notice the jet bridges are drawn backwards, but the main thing to pay attention to is the scale, which I believe I got pretty accurate (lines on the permit drawing align pretty closely with the pre-existing buildings in the images)

iamlucky13 wrote:

This area has a crosswind runway that has been closed for almost a decade.

I'm skeptical that 11/29 will ever reopen. A few years ago they shortened it from 4,504 feet to 2,000 by reconfiguring its northwestern end into a taxiway configuration along the main runway 16R/34L. Previously it intersected with 16R/34L.

If it ever does reopen, I'm not sure how useful it will be at only 2,000 feet length and they may just decide to raze it altogether.

iamlucky13 wrote:

madpropsyo wrote:

SLCUT2777 wrote:

Let's hope you're right, since WN would turn BFI into another DAL or MDW very quickly. PAE isn't governed by King County or the Port Authority of Seattle at least.

With what land? There's no way they could do much more than what's happening at PAE, BFI is already bursting at the seams. Not to mention BFI doesn't have any CAT II or III approaches so the reliability would be below that of SEA and PAE.

Fun fact:

SeaTac terminal, including the international terminal and the parking garage, but excluding the north satellite: 3500' x 2000'

Paine Field east ramp area, from the Boeing property line at the north to the ATS ramp to the south, and from 1000' from the west runway centerline to 1000' from the east runway centerline: 3500' x 1800'

This area has a crosswind runway that has been closed for almost a decade. There is also general aviation hangars and several businesses, but none of those would be impossible to relocate if there were enough demand to cover the costs (including stormwater mitigation) of relocating to the west side.

But that's not even remotely on the table at the time. I'm just throwing it out there to clarify there actually is a fair amount of room at Paine Field that could be re-arranged if a huge amount of demand were to materialize.

As a more realistic look at what might happen in the next 2-3 decades, from approximate measurements I've made, I think there is room to expand the current 2-gate terminal to 4-gates in the space between the tower and existing buildings to the south. If continuing further, a dogleg due north at the tower could fit potentially 6 more gates up to the edge of Boeing's property.

If I've linked it right, below you should see a composite layout I've shared before that helps illustrate roughly what I'm talking about. It is the terminal layout taken from county permit filings overlaid on Google aerial imagery. You may notice the jet bridges are drawn backwards, but the main thing to pay attention to is the scale, which I believe I got pretty accurate (lines on the permit drawing align pretty closely with the pre-existing buildings in the images)

I hope there is a bunch more parking. That seems like not nearly enough.

When was the last time a ‘new’ airport for regularly scheduled commercial jet service opened in the US, was that Denver?

There have been new concourses and terminals since then, but opening PAE is more than that.

Jet-lagged wrote:

When was the last time a ‘new’ airport for regularly scheduled commercial jet service opened in the US, was that Denver?

There have been new concourses and terminals since then, but opening PAE is more than that.

Well PAE has had commercial service in the past including I believe San Juan Airlines back in the 80’s flying to PDX. I wonder about the Punta Gorda’s of etc - did they all already have terminals? Can’t honestly remember.

I am beyond surprised Frontier or Spirit didnt jump on the PAE opportunity. As for WN, that is also very shocking. Did WN see something they didnt like? I wonder if this will be successful?

If PAE is successful, is there the possibility of expansion and more slots?

F9Animal wrote:

I am beyond surprised Frontier or Spirit didnt jump on the PAE opportunity. As for WN, that is also very shocking. Did WN see something they didnt like? I wonder if this will be successful?

If PAE is successful, is there the possibility of expansion and more slots?

Ya I expected at a minimum that G4 would jump on it, but in dominant-carrier fashion AS initially announced flights to all the same places an LCC might fly, and with likely better frequency. Sorta sent the message “You’re not welcome here”. Seemed to work.

No more new continental US airports for WN- they would rather use their brand to grab closer-in higher-yield passengers now rather than invest in near-term losses / build at an outer airport. And maybe WN and AS struck a deal where WN gets the DAL slot or the already-negotiated LGA slots in exchange for PAE.

F9Animal wrote:

I am beyond surprised Frontier or Spirit didnt jump on the PAE opportunity. As for WN, that is also very shocking. Did WN see something they didnt like? I wonder if this will be successful?

Personally, I myself was not expecting Frontier or Spirit, to jump into PAE at all, considering their ultra low-cost business model. It is pretty clear from the private developer, Propeller Airports, that the terminal is being developed as a high class facility with "premium" amenities, such as valet parking, and Frontier and Spirit probably saw that and said it's not their niche.

This terminal is being catered towards full service carriers, and not the ULCCs.

F9Animal wrote:

If PAE is successful, is there the possibility of expansion and more slots?

In the near-term, this doesn't look likely. There will be a strong uproar by the surrounding neighborhoods regarding any type of growth and will draw an additional FAA environmental study.

I think PAE is going to be another LGB, at least in the near future.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Ya I expected at a minimum that G4 would jump on it, but in dominant-carrier fashion AS initially announced flights to all the same places an LCC might fly, and with likely better frequency. Sorta sent the message “You’re not welcome here”. Seemed to work.

I wasn't expecting G4 to come in, for the reasons I mentioned above, but also because it will cannibalize traffic from their BLI flights.

BLI is struggling, with running at just a little more than half of the annual traffic it had during its peak year of 2013. All this after they expanded the terminal only to have traffic to drop off steeply.

BA wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Ya I expected at a minimum that G4 would jump on it, but in dominant-carrier fashion AS initially announced flights to all the same places an LCC might fly, and with likely better frequency. Sorta sent the message “You’re not welcome here”. Seemed to work.

I wasn't expecting G4 to come in, for the reasons I mentioned above, but also because it will cannibalize traffic from their BLI flights.

BLI is struggling, with running at just a little more than half of the annual traffic it had during its peak year of 2013. All this after they expanded the terminal only to have traffic to drop off steeply.

All true. Perhaps G4 would have done better moving it all to PAE? I get that the airport might not be catering to the ULCC crowd but BLI is suffering from increasing cross-border competition whereas PAE puts them into a very large and still-growing market. Anyhow, ultimately their decision proves the point - PAE wasn't for them.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

All true. Perhaps G4 would have done better moving it all to PAE? I get that the airport might not be catering to the ULCC crowd but BLI is suffering from increasing cross-border competition whereas PAE puts them into a very large and still-growing market. Anyhow, ultimately their decision proves the point - PAE wasn't for them.

I wonder if they contemplated it... Oh well, it's all too late now.

What's interesting in general about the ULCCs, is in the Seattle market, they have not bloomed. Neither Spirit nor Frontier, are strong in SEA constantly adding and removing routes, almost like they're experimenting to see what catches on.

WN also has been pretty flat to slightly shrinking, probably for similar reasons.

It's probably the nature of the market, with people here having a strong preference for full service carriers.

Speaking of BLI and how it may be affected by PAE, here's an article where BLI's airport director is expecting traffic in 2019 to drop by 5% due to PAE starting flights but then traffic will start growing again in 2020. Let's hope this is true for their sake.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 052890002/

Jet-lagged wrote:

When was the last time a ‘new’ airport for regularly scheduled commercial jet service opened in the US, was that Denver?

There have been new concourses and terminals since then, but opening PAE is more than that.

St. George UT, served by Sky West, built a new airport this century, can't recall the opening year. It replaced the old airport on a mesa top north of the town that could not handle most jets. Unfortunately, the new airport's runway has suffered severe subsidence issues and will have to be closed for a few months next year for repair. The old airport site has been redeveloped for other uses so St. George will be without an airport for a short time.

UA now posted job requisitions for customer service agents at PAE, so hopefully their announcement is coming soon:
https://myeverettnews.com/2018/11/21/mo ... ine-field/

With at least 5 RONs planned, does anyone know where these planes will be parked?

I realize it's been known for quite a long time that UA is coming to PAE. But I was a little surprised because their presence at SEA seemed to be dwindling. When the announcement of PAE becoming an airport with commercial service, AS and G4 were going to be the tenants.

Jet-lagged wrote:

When was the last time a ‘new’ airport for regularly scheduled commercial jet service opened in the US, was that Denver?

There have been new concourses and terminals since then, but opening PAE is more than that.

ECP and BKG are both fairly new airports.

wedgetail737 wrote:

I realize it's been known for quite a long time that UA is coming to PAE. But I was a little surprised because their presence at SEA seemed to be dwindling. When the announcement of PAE becoming an airport with commercial service, AS and G4 were going to be the tenants.

UA cut all non-hub flying from SEA, but it's clear they consider SEA an important station and serve SEA very well from all their hubs. They also have their own United Club lounge in Concourse A.

BA wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I realize it's been known for quite a long time that UA is coming to PAE. But I was a little surprised because their presence at SEA seemed to be dwindling. When the announcement of PAE becoming an airport with commercial service, AS and G4 were going to be the tenants.

UA cut all non-hub flying from SEA, but it's clear they consider SEA an important station and serve SEA very well from all their hubs. They also have their own United Club lounge in Concourse A.

I kind of wondered if DL thought about flying to PAE to give AS some competition but just missed the boat when all the slots were taken up in a hurry.

wedgetail737 wrote:

I kind of wondered if DL thought about flying to PAE to give AS some competition but just missed the boat when all the slots were taken up in a hurry.

I've thought about this a lot. I'm sure DL pondered it. DL is trying to establish itself in SEA as a preferential carrier for local travelers, much like how AS is viewed, while at the same time they are trying to build up SEA as a hub for their transiting passengers.

DL launching PAE would have definitely helped cement their brand in the Seattle area further, but would detract from the hub they're trying to build in Sea-Tac.

In the case of AS, they already have a strong hub and are trying to defend their brand recognition and name. The fact that AS has been so aggressive in PAE initially announcing only 9 flights during their initial announcement, then expanding it to 13 earlier this year, and finally to 18 when they took the gate times from Southwest, indicates that this is a defensive move to protect their brand recognition in the Seattle area in the face of Delta's growth.

Just my 2 cents.

BA wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

I am beyond surprised Frontier or Spirit didnt jump on the PAE opportunity. As for WN, that is also very shocking. Did WN see something they didnt like? I wonder if this will be successful?

Personally, I myself was not expecting Frontier or Spirit, to jump into PAE at all, considering their ultra low-cost business model. It is pretty clear from the private developer, Propeller Airports, that the terminal is being developed as a high class facility with "premium" amenities, such as valet parking, and Frontier and Spirit probably saw that and said it's not their niche.

This terminal is being catered towards full service carriers, and not the ULCCs.

F9Animal wrote:

If PAE is successful, is there the possibility of expansion and more slots?

In the near-term, this doesn't look likely. There will be a strong uproar by the surrounding neighborhoods regarding any type of growth and will draw an additional FAA environmental study.

I think PAE is going to be another LGB, at least in the near future.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Ya I expected at a minimum that G4 would jump on it, but in dominant-carrier fashion AS initially announced flights to all the same places an LCC might fly, and with likely better frequency. Sorta sent the message “You’re not welcome here”. Seemed to work.

I wasn't expecting G4 to come in, for the reasons I mentioned above, but also because it will cannibalize traffic from their BLI flights.

BLI is struggling, with running at just a little more than half of the annual traffic it had during its peak year of 2013. All this after they expanded the terminal only to have traffic to drop off steeply.

Plus the LCC model of lack of daily flights might not fit in with the gate slot limitations at PAE.

cschleic wrote:

BA wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

I am beyond surprised Frontier or Spirit didnt jump on the PAE opportunity. As for WN, that is also very shocking. Did WN see something they didnt like? I wonder if this will be successful?

Personally, I myself was not expecting Frontier or Spirit, to jump into PAE at all, considering their ultra low-cost business model. It is pretty clear from the private developer, Propeller Airports, that the terminal is being developed as a high class facility with "premium" amenities, such as valet parking, and Frontier and Spirit probably saw that and said it's not their niche.

This terminal is being catered towards full service carriers, and not the ULCCs.

F9Animal wrote:

If PAE is successful, is there the possibility of expansion and more slots?

In the near-term, this doesn't look likely. There will be a strong uproar by the surrounding neighborhoods regarding any type of growth and will draw an additional FAA environmental study.

I think PAE is going to be another LGB, at least in the near future.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Ya I expected at a minimum that G4 would jump on it, but in dominant-carrier fashion AS initially announced flights to all the same places an LCC might fly, and with likely better frequency. Sorta sent the message “You’re not welcome here”. Seemed to work.

I wasn't expecting G4 to come in, for the reasons I mentioned above, but also because it will cannibalize traffic from their BLI flights.

BLI is struggling, with running at just a little more than half of the annual traffic it had during its peak year of 2013. All this after they expanded the terminal only to have traffic to drop off steeply.

Plus the LCC model of lack of daily flights might not fit in with the gate slot limitations at PAE.

I would think 2 “slots” could support 4-5 destinations as long as the departure times were consistent. Unless you mean a contractural obligation to fly at least daily?

BA wrote:

this is a defensive move to protect their brand recognition in the Seattle area in the face of Delta's growth.

Or, it's a move to expand from SEA further, as those 18 flights from PAE - all to destinations served from SEA already - represent 18 opportunities to add new flights from SEA to other markets that are not presently served, or are served by fewer frequencies. DL can't grow SEA without gates, and AS continues to be aggressive in getting gates from the Port by increasing their schedule beyond what DL's growth is.

UA got the first 2 flights out of PAE.
6am SFO and 6am DEN.

Flyguy

EA CO AS wrote:

Or, it's a move to expand from SEA further, as those 18 flights from PAE - all to destinations served from SEA already - represent 18 opportunities to add new flights from SEA to other markets that are not presently served, or are served by fewer frequencies. DL can't grow SEA without gates, and AS continues to be aggressive in getting gates from the Port by increasing their schedule beyond what DL's growth is.

Are you suggesting that AS will cut back on frequencies from SEA to PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SNA, SAN, LAS, and PHX now that they'll be served from PAE? And use those 18 freed up flight times from SEA to expand other frequencies or launch new markets?

wnflyguy wrote:

UA got the first 2 flights out of PAE.
6am SFO and 6am DEN.

Flyguy

Flights start March 31 it looks like.

Alaska is covering the west coast pretty well. United flying to Denver where there are potential connections to the rest of the lower US, Practically speaking that does not look like a great start to provide one stop service to most of the US. It could be a good opportunity to United. I had kind of expected WN or others to offer service to the east and southeast - Denver or Midway. Obviously wrong. I think it takes four to five flights a day to make OK connecting service work.

My husband and I are excited. We'll be able to fly up from SFO one fine day, take a tour of the Everett factory, and then fly home.

BA wrote:

Are you suggesting that AS will cut back on frequencies from SEA to PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SNA, SAN, LAS, and PHX now that they'll be served from PAE? And use those 18 freed up flight times from SEA to expand other frequencies or launch new markets?

I'm saying that with many people living north of SEA not wanting to drive all the way down I-5 to get there, having alternatives out of PAE might reduce the need for as many frequencies to some existing markets like LAX, freeing up an aircraft to fly other missions out of SEA that aren't currently being met.

Not "will." "Might."

DocLightning wrote:

take a tour of the Everett factory

Highly recommended!!

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Alaska is covering the west coast pretty well. United flying to Denver where there are potential connections to the rest of the lower US, Practically speaking that does not look like a great start to provide one stop service to most of the US. It could be a good opportunity to United. I had kind of expected WN or others to offer service to the east and southeast - Denver or Midway. Obviously wrong. I think it takes four to five flights a day to make OK connecting service work.

UA's two flights to/from DEN are well-timed for connections, so I think they should do fine. E175s are not particularly difficult to fill either.

EA CO AS wrote:

BA wrote:

Are you suggesting that AS will cut back on frequencies from SEA to PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SNA, SAN, LAS, and PHX now that they'll be served from PAE? And use those 18 freed up flight times from SEA to expand other frequencies or launch new markets?

I'm saying that with many people living north of SEA not wanting to drive all the way down I-5 to get there, having alternatives out of PAE might reduce the need for as many frequencies to some existing markets like LAX, freeing up an aircraft to fly other missions out of SEA that aren't currently being met.

Not "will." "Might."

Got it.

EA CO AS wrote:

BA wrote:

Are you suggesting that AS will cut back on frequencies from SEA to PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SNA, SAN, LAS, and PHX now that they'll be served from PAE? And use those 18 freed up flight times from SEA to expand other frequencies or launch new markets?

I'm saying that with many people living north of SEA not wanting to drive all the way down I-5 to get there, having alternatives out of PAE might reduce the need for as many frequencies to some existing markets like LAX, freeing up an aircraft to fly other missions out of SEA that aren't currently being met.

Not "will." "Might."

I had the same thought. It obviously won't be 18 departures' worth at SeaTac, but it ought to allow for a little bit of schedule consolidation to allow for expansion elsewhere from SEA.

trueblew wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

BA wrote:

Are you suggesting that AS will cut back on frequencies from SEA to PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SNA, SAN, LAS, and PHX now that they'll be served from PAE? And use those 18 freed up flight times from SEA to expand other frequencies or launch new markets?

I'm saying that with many people living north of SEA not wanting to drive all the way down I-5 to get there, having alternatives out of PAE might reduce the need for as many frequencies to some existing markets like LAX, freeing up an aircraft to fly other missions out of SEA that aren't currently being met.

Not "will." "Might."

I had the same thought. It obviously won't be 18 departures' worth at SeaTac, but it ought to allow for a little bit of schedule consolidation to allow for expansion elsewhere from SEA.

Or create more room on existing routes to combat DL. It’ll be interesting to see if loads and eventually yields live up to the hope/hype.

Looks like there will be 7 E-Jets that will overnight every day, 5 Alaska and 2 United. I wonder where they'll park them? There's really not much apron space at PAE at present.

Only two a day from Denver can mean an overnight in a motel weather, missed connection etc. May not be better than going through SeaTac.

It's the concept as old as Methuselah. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Truth.

Starting March 17, Everett Transit is modifying Route 8 to stop at the new Paine Field passenger terminal, providing service to Everett Station. It will run every 40 minutes during peak hours on weekdays and every 60 minutes on weekends and during non-peak hours on weekdays.

http://www.everetttransit.org/315/March-2019-Route-8
http://www.everetttransit.org/289/Service-Change

In Spring 2019 (specific date not yet announced, but probably March 24), Community Transit's new Swift Green Line, Snohomish County's second Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line will begin operations and have a station near the terminal at Airport Rd & 100th St SW. The station will be a 10 minute walk from the terminal. It will run every 10 minutes during peak hours on weekdays and every 20 minutes on weekends and during non-peak hours on weekdays.

http://www.communitytransit.org/swiftgreen
http://www.communitytransit.org/swift

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Only two a day from Denver can mean an overnight in a motel weather, missed connection etc. May not be better than going through SeaTac.

I can see this being one of the instances where if that happens UX charters a bus and drops the passengers off at SeaTac to get them out on a flight.

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

"Alaska wouldn’t comment on terms of this deal or how it came about, saying its lawyers declared the transaction confidential."

"Southwest Managing Director of Airport Affairs Steve Sisneros said the same."


"Alaska spokesman Ray Lane insists the Paine Field deal with Southwest “has absolutely no connection to Dallas Love Field.”

It may, however, have more to do with Southwest’s other, larger expansion plans.

Southwest Chairman and CEO Gary Kelly said last month: “For next year, Hawaii is our expansion focus.”

He added Southwest will slow growth in 2019.

The withdrawal from Everett may signal Southwest’s hands are full with its planned Hawaii expansion."

WN's interest in PAE shocked me. Outside of California, WN seems to have a *really* hard time making multiple airports work in the same metropolitan areas (CAK, DAY, FNT, HPN, IAD, IAH, ISP, MHT, PBI and SRQ spring to mind). It's not like they have an amazing track record in the Pacific Northwest either.

I suspect this was merely a routine exercise in snapping up something scarce. From DCA and LGA slots to Cuban route authorities, WN has been aggressively pursuing rare expansion opportunities for years now. However, I suspect once WN started to do its homework PAE looked less like DCA/LGA and more like SNU/VRA. I daresay the big airport further north (YVR) may be a far better move for WN...

EA CO AS wrote:

BA wrote:

Are you suggesting that AS will cut back on frequencies from SEA to PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX, SNA, SAN, LAS, and PHX now that they'll be served from PAE? And use those 18 freed up flight times from SEA to expand other frequencies or launch new markets?

I'm saying that with many people living north of SEA not wanting to drive all the way down I-5 to get there, having alternatives out of PAE might reduce the need for as many frequencies to some existing markets like LAX, freeing up an aircraft to fly other missions out of SEA that aren't currently being met.

Not "will." "Might."

Based on updates posted in the Washington State Air Service Discussion thread, I think we can update the first half of this (reduce SEA flights) to "Will." Now we wait to see if the second half occurs (using those SEA slots for other destinations).

My post, plus an update in the next post from user BA clarifying some of the reductions are relative to short term peaks, but are actually still growth at SEA relative to the longer term history:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1382437&p=20910543#p20910543

iamlucky13 wrote:

My post, plus an update in the next post from user BA clarifying some of the reductions are relative to short term peaks, but are actually still growth at SEA relative to the longer term history:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1382437&p=20910543#p20910543

Just for clarification, the number to the left of the angle bracket (>) is the frequency for that month as of the prior week.

For example, on AS LAX-SEA FEB 15>14[11], AS was planning to have 15 flights per day on LAX-SEA for this coming February as of last week, but as of this week the frequency is now planned to be 14, which is still higher than what was scheduled this past February which had a frequency of 11 flights.

So it's really the difference between what's been filed from week to week for that upcoming month, compared to what was actually scheduled for that month in the prior year.

This is how I understood enilria's instructions.

Due to the government shut down, PAE flights have been delayed until March 4th: https://blog.alaskaair.com/alaska-airli ... t=z0fIC36v

FA9295 wrote:

Due to the government shut down, PAE flights have been delayed until March 4th: https://blog.alaskaair.com/alaska-airli ... t=z0fIC36v

It wouldn't surprise me if it gets postponed further.