myleguy

I'm wondering if it may be a gate issue. Virgin has one gate on A and Alaska has one gate on C. Perhaps they are waiting to combine operations and get another gate.

Chugach

SEA-DEN is what, 5x daily? Should be enough room to slot in one or two PDX flights.

DuckFlyer

I also find it maddening that PDX-DEN is not served by at least a E175 while routes with what would appear to have far less O&D are served!

I have reached out to AS numerous times to request this route. I have also started flying United rather than connect through Seattle.

WebTraveler

When Alaska bailed several years ago they were one of four airlines on the route (United, Southwest, Frontier) and I think that still exists today. The other three all had decent connections via Denver. Largely Alaska was relying on local traffic.

It is a hole in the network, but I do think that from a service perspective it is important. But if the object is to make money then this/was a bloodbath.

ncorman

ORD and PHX feed into the AA network and onward connections.

Anything connecting through PDX can be covered out of the SEA hub. Having flown DEN-SEA around 25 times the past three years I know that over half of the plane would connect onward in SEA and is not pure O&D. Coming into DEN no one would really connect onward unless it was the last flight in and they were traveling onward to MIA on AA as that left at midnight.

gobeavs8

Ok.. But SEA-DEN is what 5x daily?I and others are making the case that connections are really irrelevant either way for this route to be successful. I doubt that Alaska couldn't fill a E175 with just O&D traffic. Over half a million people flew from Portland to Denver last year. I get that connections are a good portion of that but so is O&D.

One e175 adds what.. 25k seats to the market annually? Seems like a good add for your Second Largest hub.

jrl767

I'm an engineer by degree, and in engineering & technical management by profession (i.e., not an economist), but this seems to be an example of microeconomics vs macroeconomics: what an individual thinks would be a good idea (i.e., what supports his/her travel patterns) may not fit into the company's big-picture analyses that have to consider the entirety of their operations

czpdx

As someone above said, it's PDX's fourth largest destination. For AS frequent flyers that might make a trip to DEN, say, four times a year, that's a significant dent in their mileage earning trek...and a good start on their WN or UA earnings for the year. That's the issue that doesn't seem to make business sense to me: such a big hole from such a huge FF base likely leads to a lot of leakage on other routes since people are already accruing miles in other programs when they fly PDX-DEN. I, for one, fly WN PDX-DEN, and stacking up points in WN's program from those flights makes it more compelling for me to fly WN PDX-OAK or any other overlapping route than if I wasn't accruing WN points at all.

Waitlisted

The Portland MSA is pushing 2.5 million now, significantly more than when AS pulled out. Also AS is the 600lb gorilla in town and even though it's a long way from the number of flights in SEA there are a lot us Portlanders who are very loyal to AS and I think we would most all support an E175 to DIA. I fly to DEN only 3-4 times a year and would use AS over WN whom I use now for sure. It wouldn't take that many more like me to make that flight make sense. I know AS has kept lean flights going from PDX to support the market (PDX/PSP early/late season and in the recession as an example) so maybe it's time!

rustykettel

Is SEA 5x daily year round or does the fifth flight disappear during the winter?

Once more E175's start coming online and actually start replacing some of these longer Q400 routes...

Often1

As to O&D, from a passenger perspective, who cares? If you are at PDX and need to be in DEN, there are 8 nonstops on the route already (UA = 3, WN = 3, F9 = 2). Even if AS were to add one frequency, HVC business traffic demands more than one because passengers want convenience.

What could AS offer which another carrier doesn't offer on this route which would make a paid business flier give up convenience? Lie flat, 5-course hot meal, chauffeur service? None of that is coming on AS (nor any other carrier).

Loads, O&D and the like are irrelevant --- all that matters is PRASM.

If any of the people suggesting that the PRASM is there to support this route and that it is higher than for other routes which a given -175 might serve, then the commentary is useful.

Otherwise, you can bet that AS --- just like every other carrier --- runs projections on prospective routes and has determined that it isn't high enough to repurpose an aircraft (or purchase / lease one).

gobeavs8

I get what you are saying. Although O&D is not as irrelevant as it is component of demand which in turn affects PRASM. I also dont think you should under estimate the "hole in the network claim". Not serving a huge route can push peoples loyalty to other airlines like others have said. I would compare this route to a PDX-LAS which has a "Low Cost" and a Ultra Low Cost Carrier on the route flying to hubs ahem "Focus Cities" and is a similar distance, but Alaska serves it.

Again I am trying to be the squeaky wheel gets the grease here. Like people have suggested i sent Alaska a nice note with my concerns.

tusphotog

What I've started doing is sending copies of my Southwest confirmations with the prices on my PHX-PDX-PHX commute. In year's past, I've gone through SEA, but I'm trying to avoid that airport as much as possible with all the congestion...

Calculon

I didn't suggest otherwise. Just answering the question posed.

High or low fares, in the end the goal is always profitability. That's true even if a fare is sold at or below cost.

beckoa

That's a good suggestion. And buy higher fares so AS understands the revenue loss

Guess someone's gotta fly WN