Alaska Air Now Eyes Boeing Field, Too

[corl737]

Those "analysts" must not read AA's required financial filings. Otherwise they might have caught the mention of the $3.5 BILLION we have in the bank.

[post="309597"][/post]​

There's a huge difference between cash in the bank and working capital. Facing huge fuel costs and competing against two more legacy carriers operating under Chapter 11's comfort, AMR is in no position to squander money for a Boeing Field project. They have, however, performed another successful media blitz promoting their "worst nightmare scenario" designed to convince the King County residents that BFI will be the new location of a bazillion flights from SeaTac. (Why let facts get in the way of a good scare tactic? )

 

[jimntx]

Just announced on 6pm news in Dallas.


King County Executive Vetoes SWA's Boeing Field Plan over neighborhood noise concerns

Sorry, Charlie. It's just not Star-Kist.

 

[corl737]

Just announced on 6pm news in Dallas.
King County Executive Vetoes SWA's Boeing Field Plan over neighborhood noise concerns

Sorry, Charlie. It's just not Star-Kist.

[post="311246"][/post]​

Guess not. Alas, there are bigger salmon to fry, (W)right?

 

[coolflyingfool]

There was no way that SWA was going to get a fair shake on this. AA and AS just threw their names in to the move just to help King County to make the decision. I would like to see SWA take their money and leave SEA and GEG.
AS charges $342 for unrestricted SEA-PDX and only $188 for SEA-GEG. I wonder which one has SWA competition. just my view............

 

[IORFA]

Who's stopping SWA from flying between SEA and PDX? Maybe it has something to do with Horizons almost half hourly service and United Express' 5 flights a day. Or are they complaing about the Wright Ammendment constrainging them in SEA as well?

 

[corl737]

Who's stopping SWA from flying between SEA and PDX? Maybe it has something to do with Horizons almost half hourly service and United Express' 5 flights a day.

The same people that keep Alaska from serving this route with Boeings, too. It's called "economics". If this short-haul was profitable with anything bigger than Dash-8s (and a few token RJ's per day) it would be done.

... Or are they complaing about the Wright Ammendment constrainging them in SEA as well?

[post="311533"][/post]​

Hmmm, what airline was it who whined to congress because it couldn't fly where it wanted? Oh yeah, Alaska! Alaska operates its SEA-DCA non-stop flights courtesy of a congressionally-granted exemption to the Reagan Washington National Airport's federally-mandated 1,250 mile perimeter rule!


------------------------

Historical sidenote:

The original DCA rule, imposed in the '60s to protect the fledgling Dulles International Airport, was only 650 miles. This was later expanded up to the current 1,250 miles after some wrangling by Jim Wright (D-Fort Worth, TX) and Lloyd Bentsen (D-Houston, TX). Amazingly that new distance is just enough to encompass both DFW and Houston's Intercontinental! (DCA-DFW: 1,188 mi; DCA-IAH: 1,204 mi)

Thus, another "Wright-rule" affects the ability of west-coast airlines to access the close-in-and-convenient DCA!

 

[jimntx]

Thus, another "Wright-rule" affects the ability of west-coast airlines to access the close-in-and-convenient DCA!

Oh, but be fair now. Let's not forget that the original plan was for DCA to close completely when Dulles opened. After all, DCA was old, out-of-date, ugly and cramped. Then the esteemed gentlemen in the halls of Congress realized that A. Dulles was 50 miles out in the Virginny boonies and B. there were no plans for them to each have a reserved parking space up front at Dulles like they have at DCA. Suddenly, the importance of DCA to the "nation's economy" became apparent to them.

 

[whlinder]

Hmmm, what airline was it who whined to congress because it couldn't fly where it wanted? Oh yeah, Alaska! Alaska operates its SEA-DCA non-stop flights courtesy of a congressionally-granted exemption to the Reagan Washington National Airport's federally-mandated 1,250 mile perimeter rule!

[post="311886"][/post]​

Please.

Alaska didn't even apply for the first round of slots. The airline that 'whined' was HP because McCain didn't like driving to IAD to fly to PHX, and because he needed to get his hometown airline a couple of routes where WN wouldn't hand their ass to them. So he got 6 RTs to be alotted to various carriers. AS didn't apply. TW 'became' part of AA, but the slots didn't transfer, so they went back up for grabs. AS applied for those and won them. When more slots were made available, AS applied for some as well. I am sure they lobbied for the passage of the 2nd bill to expand the number slots but they didn't even bother to apply to first time.

No more whining that WN and the Wright Amendment.

 

[jimntx]

...designed to convince the King County residents that BFI will be the new location of a bazillion flights from SeaTac. (Why let facts get in the way of a good scare tactic?  )

[post="309714"][/post]​

Oh, but SWA people now trying to take credit for lower fees at SEA-TAC doesn't suggest scare tactics to you? They probably had no intention whatsoever of actually moving to Boeing Field. They just wanted to scare the Port Authority. , yourself.

Let's face it. As far as you are concerned, SWA's motives will always be pure, humanitarian, and driven only by a desire to provide lower fares to the masses. I look at SWA as just another publicly-held corporation whose only (Federally-mandated) motive is to make a profit for its stockholders. And, it has been very successful in that pursuit. But, don't give me the cr*p that you are just trying to do good for the people.

If that were true, how come Montgomery, AL doesn't have SW service? Or, Memphis, TN? Or, Wichita, KS? Or, anywhere in Colorado? (And, don't say that the ATA codeshare counts. We both know that's just temporary. Colorado has been without SWA service for a long time.) Are you saying that people in those cities don't deserve to have the blessings of SWA low fares bestowed upon them? Or, is it because SWA knows they can't make a profit flying to those cities?

The Boeing Field ploy was just that. And, I have a feeling that it worked out just the way SWA wanted it to. If they had really wanted to move to Boeing Field AND it was the only way they could make a profit in Seattle area, the move would have happened, regardless of how many other airlines tried to set up shop there.

 

[corl737]

Oh, but SWA people now trying to take credit for lower fees at SEA-TAC doesn't suggest scare tactics to you? They probably had no intention whatsoever of actually moving to Boeing Field. They just wanted to scare the Port Authority. , yourself.

That's a good techique! I've never seen an emoticon included in a reply like that. Nice touch!

Care to tell me why no other airline had the kahunas to tell the Port of Seattle to stick their extravagant add-on projects into their darkest recesses? Instead of being wimpy and accepting the status quo, SWA came up with a plan and proposed it. Regardless of the results (which we now know), the public was made aware of the way the Port does business ... and they don't seem too thrilled.

SWA's proposal to move to BFI wasn't simply a hollow threat. SWA has funded terminal expansions in several of its operating locations so the concept wasn't unique to BFI. Unlike the way some other businesses approach such an issue, SWA keeps their money above the table and accepts the decision of the local government.

Yes, SWA can and does make money at SEA. It isn't a question of that. It is a question of how to do business in the Seattle area in the most efficient and profitable way. SeaTac operations will continue, but will do so with one eye looking for more efficient and less costly alternatives.

The rest of your comments had nothing to do with Alaska or any other issue within the "Regionals & Nationals" forum. If you'd like to address them in the SWA forum, come on over. Let's give these folks a break!

 

[Salmon37]

Guess not. Alas, there are bigger salmon to fry, (W)right?

I think the key to this whole discussion is the fact that the King County Council wants a reliever airport for SeaTac. They just don't want it at Boeing Field, a stone's throw from SeaTac.

That makes me think the real agenda is to make the Puget Sound reliever Paine Field. And that really makes more sense if you think about it. Will SWA and/or Alaska aquiesce? The jury remains out on that.

 

[corl737]

I think the key to this whole discussion is the fact that the King County Council wants a reliever airport for SeaTac. They just don't want it at Boeing Field, a stone's throw from SeaTac.

That makes me think the real agenda is to make the Puget Sound reliever Paine Field. And that really makes more sense if you think about it. Will SWA and/or Alaska aquiesce? The jury remains out on that.

I don't think Paine Field is nearly as attractive an option. From a marketing standpoint, it's always better if people have to drive past your facility to get where they're going. In other words, it makes a much bigger impression - and enticement - for passengers to fly into BFI if they have to go past it on their way to downtown Seattle from SeaTac.

I think that Paine Field, while a nice facility, doesn't fit the "close in" criteria SWA usually looks for. However, never say never.

 

[Salmon37]

I think that Paine Field, while a nice facility, doesn't fit the "close in" criteria SWA usually looks for. However, never say never.

Your point is well taken. However, it appears to be the preference of the King County Council that the reliever airport not be less than 7 miles from SeaTac. That, in itself, doesn't make sense. Besides, as another poster pointed out, the infrastructure changes that would have to be made to the highways, bridges and surface streets to provide access to BFI would be prohibitive.

 

[WNJETFIXER]

I don't think Paine Field is nearly as attractive an option. From a marketing standpoint, it's always better if people have to drive past your facility to get where they're going. In other words, it makes a much bigger impression - and enticement - for passengers to fly into BFI if they have to go past it on their way to downtown Seattle from SeaTac.

I think that Paine Field, while a nice facility, doesn't fit the "close in" criteria SWA usually looks for. However, never say never.

I don't think Paine Field would fly for SWA. But you never know.