Paine Field
Aug 8, 2005, 6:24 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sea & psp
Programs: AS
Posts: 44
Paine Field
For those in the know, wouldnt it make more since for Alaska to consider Paine Field in Everett as a second air strip instead of following Southwest to boeing Field?
Also seem like it would be a great option for when Seatac has problems, while help our flying friends in the northend and maybe give us some cheaper flights
Southern california has LAX, Burbank, Long Beach and Orange County
I dont know just a thought
Was Paine fogged in yesterday?
jim
Also seem like it would be a great option for when Seatac has problems, while help our flying friends in the northend and maybe give us some cheaper flights
Southern california has LAX, Burbank, Long Beach and Orange County
I dont know just a thought
Was Paine fogged in yesterday?
jim
Aug 8, 2005, 6:35 pm
#2
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Seattle, Wa
Programs: AS 75K & BR Member- HHonors Diamond - Hertz PC - Marriott Titanium - IHG Ambassador
Posts: 2,379
If i remember right...
The local media talked about this a few years ago. I think it might have been to compare costs vs building the 3rd runway at SeaTac, but the media loves to hype things up.
They have done it a lot lately regarding WN moving to Boeing Field.
I would have no problem flying out of Paine field although its about equal distance from my home to either place. Certain traffic patterns depending upon departure time's could make one more attractive than the other.
My 2 cents
Junkie
They have done it a lot lately regarding WN moving to Boeing Field.
I would have no problem flying out of Paine field although its about equal distance from my home to either place. Certain traffic patterns depending upon departure time's could make one more attractive than the other.
My 2 cents
Junkie
Aug 8, 2005, 6:53 pm
#3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: AS MVP, Elevate, AAdvantage, Mileage Plus
Posts: 1,992
There have actually been times when SEA was fogged in but BFI was not. I still think the port picked an incredibly poor location to build the region's main airport because the particular microclimate in that location is especially conducive to fog.
Aug 8, 2005, 7:06 pm
#4
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: Hilton Platinum, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by EIPremier
I still think the port picked an incredibly poor location to build the region's main airport because the particular microclimate in that location is especially conducive to fog.
Southwest's successful operating model is premised on quick, easy, access to turn planes around and reasonable facility costs. Southwest has decided to play hardball with See-Tac, and the Seattle market in general.
What are the facilities like in Olympia? Any to convert that to full passenger use? I believe there are some flignts to Spokane from Olympia on a small airline, at least I heard that. Anyone know for sure?
Aug 8, 2005, 7:30 pm
#5
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,956
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
Southwest's successful operating model is premised on quick, easy, access to turn planes around and reasonable facility costs. Southwest has decided to play hardball with See-Tac, and the Seattle market in general.
You know what really gripes my a** about Southwest's proposal, among other things, is that they claim this will bring more affordable travel to Seattle travelers. I can't see where that would be possible without undercutting the rest of their system. WN is one of the only airlines that actually uses some common sense in their pricing structure. Their lowest sale fare is $39 (and only when they are offering big fare sales), which is the lowest fare you will ever pay on WN between two of their cities. This fare generally applies to markets like SEA-GEG, SEA-BOI, GEG-BOI, DAL-HOU, MDW-DTW, BWI-ISP, MCO-FLL. The fares get higher from there and top out at $299 each way in their long haul markets. Generally speaking, they only ever offer about five or six fares in any market. I HIGHLY doubt that Southwest is going to break BFI from the rest of their system and charge less for a ticket from, say, BFI to BWI then they do from PDX to BWI. I can't see how they would charge $129 one way from BFI to MDW and $199 from PDX/OAK/LAX/SAN/BOI/GEG/LAS to MDW. So how, exactly, is it going to benefit a Seattle traveler, fare wise, to travel from BFI rather than SEA, except that it will be a smaller, less congested airport? It will also have very limited amenities and BFI is not an easy airport to access. Not to mention, if Seattle EVER stops dragging their feet on the whole light rail issue, a stop at BFI is not currently in their plans and most likely won't be in the forseeable future, while a stop at SEA is apparently on the drawing board. The real beneficiary of this whole deal is Southwest who will start making a lot more money because of the lower airport fees per passenger which will, almost assuredly, not be passed on to their passengers. The only benefit will be more frequency on Southwest but, as it stands, Southwest can currently get one from SEA to any other city in their route network. If you ask me, it's going to be the tax payer that ends up taking this one in the end when we are faced with mounting costs for the infrastructure to support the "free" airport Southwest wants to give us. Not to mention, BFI is, what, 5 miles from SEA? How is it going to be that much more convenient to fly from BFI on a whole? It's not like BFI is THAT much closer to the city that it's all that much more convenient, as opposed to, say, MDW vs. ORD.
Last edited by AS Flyer; Aug 8, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Aug 8, 2005, 8:00 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Seattle, Wa
Programs: AS 75K & BR Member- HHonors Diamond - Hertz PC - Marriott Titanium - IHG Ambassador
Posts: 2,379
This is as good of place as any...
Besides, i value your opinion. I am not a very likely client of WN anyway, so it doesn't entice me to fly out of BFI.
Aug 8, 2005, 10:42 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Portland
Posts: 11,571
Originally Posted by IceTrojan
Perhaps WN should start operating floating 737s and land in Puget or Lake Union? 
Aug 11, 2005, 10:07 am
#9
Join Date: May 2002
Location: OAK
Programs: AS MVPG; WN A-List; Marriott Plat; IHG Plat; HH Diamond; all the rest
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
You know what really gripes my a** about Southwest's proposal, among other things, is that they claim this will bring more affordable travel to Seattle travelers. ... It will also have very limited amenities and BFI is not an easy airport to access. Not to mention, if Seattle EVER stops dragging their feet on the whole light rail issue, a stop at BFI is not currently in their plans ... The real beneficiary of this whole deal is Southwest who will start making a lot more money because of the lower airport fees per passenger which will, almost assuredly, not be passed on to their passengers. ... If you ask me, it's going to be the tax payer that ends up taking this one in the end ... It's not like BFI is THAT much closer to the city that it's all that much more convenient, as opposed to, say, MDW vs. ORD.
Paine Field is basically off the table, under plans prepared by Snohomish County sometime ago.
Aug 11, 2005, 11:15 am
#10
Join Date: Feb 2001
Programs: UA 1k, AA Plt, MR Lifetime Plat & Amb
Posts: 1,829
A few years ago when the major flack was in the air over the 3rd runway the media was reporting that McCord AFB was being considered as an alternate airport. It obviously didn't go very far. Paine field would have been the better option just from a population density standpoint.
My only gripe with WN moving to BFI is the likelihood of having to pay more taxes to improve roads, create parking structures, and needed infrastructure changes that will be required. I can't believe that WN will pay all the costs of the move, and since they didn't say they would I believe us locals will get stuck with a host of externalities. If there was no threat of costs on me I'd say good riddance to WN from SEA. There's no way I'll fly them until they change their boarding process.
My only gripe with WN moving to BFI is the likelihood of having to pay more taxes to improve roads, create parking structures, and needed infrastructure changes that will be required. I can't believe that WN will pay all the costs of the move, and since they didn't say they would I believe us locals will get stuck with a host of externalities. If there was no threat of costs on me I'd say good riddance to WN from SEA. There's no way I'll fly them until they change their boarding process.
Last edited by Dudemon; Aug 11, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Aug 12, 2005, 6:26 pm
#11
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: Hilton Platinum, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
You know what really gripes my a** about Southwest's proposal, among other things, is that they claim this will bring more affordable travel to Seattle travelers. I can't see where that would be possible without undercutting the rest of their system. WN is one of the only airlines that actually uses some common sense in their pricing structure. Their lowest sale fare is $39 (and only when they are offering big fare sales), which is the lowest fare you will ever pay on WN between two of their cities. This fare generally applies to markets like SEA-GEG, SEA-BOI, GEG-BOI, DAL-HOU, MDW-DTW, BWI-ISP, MCO-FLL. The fares get higher from there and top out at $299 each way in their long haul markets. Generally speaking, they only ever offer about five or six fares in any market. I HIGHLY doubt that Southwest is going to break BFI from the rest of their system and charge less for a ticket from, say, BFI to BWI then they do from PDX to BWI. I can't see how they would charge $129 one way from BFI to MDW and $199 from PDX/OAK/LAX/SAN/BOI/GEG/LAS to MDW. So how, exactly, is it going to benefit a Seattle traveler, fare wise, to travel from BFI rather than SEA, except that it will be a smaller, less congested airport? It will also have very limited amenities and BFI is not an easy airport to access. Not to mention, if Seattle EVER stops dragging their feet on the whole light rail issue, a stop at BFI is not currently in their plans and most likely won't be in the forseeable future, while a stop at SEA is apparently on the drawing board. The real beneficiary of this whole deal is Southwest who will start making a lot more money because of the lower airport fees per passenger which will, almost assuredly, not be passed on to their passengers. The only benefit will be more frequency on Southwest but, as it stands, Southwest can currently get one from SEA to any other city in their route network. If you ask me, it's going to be the tax payer that ends up taking this one in the end when we are faced with mounting costs for the infrastructure to support the "free" airport Southwest wants to give us. Not to mention, BFI is, what, 5 miles from SEA? How is it going to be that much more convenient to fly from BFI on a whole? It's not like BFI is THAT much closer to the city that it's all that much more convenient, as opposed to, say, MDW vs. ORD.
Secondly, to charge the fares that make people want to fly Southwest they need to keep their costs low so they can offer these fares. There are too many airlines now trying to mimic Southwest in this area, so without the cost advantage, Southwest may lose some travelers (i.e. if Southwest is less more travelers will fly them. If Alaska is the same as Southwest then not as many people will fly Southwest.) Keeping the costs low is another way they make money. In the past it wasn't as bad as the majors were not concerned about fare comparability. Now it is mandatory. The only way Southwest can keep its edge on this point is to keep its costs down.
Third, Southwest also has many cities willing to welcome it, or expand current service. If Seattle is not willing to play the game, you will see any expansion efforts go elsewhere (i.e. places where they can make more money on the planes). Someone will offer them what they want to lure them to the market. I doubt Southwest would ever leave Seattle, but I think you might see some scaled down operations.
The fact that Southwest is in the Seattle market is a benefit to Seattle passengers, period. Even if it moves to Boeing Field, the presence is still beneficial to Seattle - even if there is a cost to the taxpayers. They keep pricing low and honest. In markets without Southwest, fares are higher. In markets with Southwest, fares are lower.
Personally, the airlines at SeaTac might benefit by having Southwest move out. Then the direct comparison will be off a bit, and that may help Alaska or whoever differentiate their product. SeaTac offers things Boeing Field will never be able to offer.
Just my two cents.
Aug 13, 2005, 12:51 am
#12
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,956
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
I think you are missing the point of what Southwest is trying to do. Southwest's niche is flying from secondary airports at a decent cost. Their market is not a full service airline. As part of the secondary airport premise they can turn their planes quicker as there is little congestion to worry about, that is found at most larger airports. This is one way the company makes money - keep the planes in the air.
Secondly, to charge the fares that make people want to fly Southwest they need to keep their costs low so they can offer these fares. There are too many airlines now trying to mimic Southwest in this area, so without the cost advantage, Southwest may lose some travelers (i.e. if Southwest is less more travelers will fly them. If Alaska is the same as Southwest then not as many people will fly Southwest.) Keeping the costs low is another way they make money. In the past it wasn't as bad as the majors were not concerned about fare comparability. Now it is mandatory. The only way Southwest can keep its edge on this point is to keep its costs down.
Third, Southwest also has many cities willing to welcome it, or expand current service. If Seattle is not willing to play the game, you will see any expansion efforts go elsewhere (i.e. places where they can make more money on the planes). Someone will offer them what they want to lure them to the market. I doubt Southwest would ever leave Seattle, but I think you might see some scaled down operations.
The fact that Southwest is in the Seattle market is a benefit to Seattle passengers, period. Even if it moves to Boeing Field, the presence is still beneficial to Seattle - even if there is a cost to the taxpayers. They keep pricing low and honest. In markets without Southwest, fares are higher. In markets with Southwest, fares are lower.
Personally, the airlines at SeaTac might benefit by having Southwest move out. Then the direct comparison will be off a bit, and that may help Alaska or whoever differentiate their product. SeaTac offers things Boeing Field will never be able to offer.
Just my two cents.
Secondly, to charge the fares that make people want to fly Southwest they need to keep their costs low so they can offer these fares. There are too many airlines now trying to mimic Southwest in this area, so without the cost advantage, Southwest may lose some travelers (i.e. if Southwest is less more travelers will fly them. If Alaska is the same as Southwest then not as many people will fly Southwest.) Keeping the costs low is another way they make money. In the past it wasn't as bad as the majors were not concerned about fare comparability. Now it is mandatory. The only way Southwest can keep its edge on this point is to keep its costs down.
Third, Southwest also has many cities willing to welcome it, or expand current service. If Seattle is not willing to play the game, you will see any expansion efforts go elsewhere (i.e. places where they can make more money on the planes). Someone will offer them what they want to lure them to the market. I doubt Southwest would ever leave Seattle, but I think you might see some scaled down operations.
The fact that Southwest is in the Seattle market is a benefit to Seattle passengers, period. Even if it moves to Boeing Field, the presence is still beneficial to Seattle - even if there is a cost to the taxpayers. They keep pricing low and honest. In markets without Southwest, fares are higher. In markets with Southwest, fares are lower.
Personally, the airlines at SeaTac might benefit by having Southwest move out. Then the direct comparison will be off a bit, and that may help Alaska or whoever differentiate their product. SeaTac offers things Boeing Field will never be able to offer.
Just my two cents.
I'm not missing the point at all. Southwest wants to move to a less expensive location so they can expand here and make more money. That's fine in and of itself. What's not fine is the large costs that will be passed on to the taxpayers. So what, we won't have to pay for the terminal and parking garage. We WILL have to pay for the roads to support this air service, the preparation to get this area ready for Southwest to build their terminal, any and all runway and taxiway improvements and the TSA to support their new operation. If Southwest wants to make this move then they should have to pay ALL the costs, then and only then will it be acceptable. They are, after all, the beneficiaries of this move. The people of Seattle won't be benefiting. The fares aren't going to drop because of this move.
If other airlines can come to SEA and mimic their style and make money then why can't WN do the same? If they can't compete on a level playing field then that's a problem they need to figure out, but somehow I don't think that's a problem for Southwest at all.
As far as Southwest's "lower" fares, other airlines compete with their fares, offering the same fare. Southwest shouldn't have an unfair competitive advantage so they can charge less. What's the point of that?
If Southwest is going to stay in the SEA market, and I suspect they will regardless of the outcome of this, then they will need to offer a competitive level of service in order to compete. That tells me that they won't be scaling back their operations all that much. They don't offer a huge number of nonstop flights to any of their current SEA destinations. If they can make more money in other markets then they have a responsibility to their stockholders to do that. It's that simple. Seattle already has an airport that airlines are welcome to serve. BFI is not it. What would you be saying if Southwest wanted to move to Hillsbourough airport in PDX and needed the taxpayers of PDX to pay for roadways, taxiways and what not?
Aug 13, 2005, 8:21 am
#13
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: Hilton Platinum, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 2,363
Stop getting so defensive about it. I am merely pointing our their market niche and how they make money.
There is a cost to it, but I also believe that it could be good for the local economy if it is done correctly.
As for your comment about Hillsboro - I don't care if they expand out there. I don't think the runway could accomodate a 737, however. Personally, I think some of the people out there would welcome a Horizon or something. Its no different than some of the corporate jets out there now.
As another point, Boeing Field has had commerical air service before. Just because they don't now doesn't mean they shouldn't ever again. To me it is an interesting option that the Seattle area has.
I think Seattle and King County could drive a hard bargain for this airport and use it to their advantage - and maybe they should consider that.
There is a cost to it, but I also believe that it could be good for the local economy if it is done correctly.
As for your comment about Hillsboro - I don't care if they expand out there. I don't think the runway could accomodate a 737, however. Personally, I think some of the people out there would welcome a Horizon or something. Its no different than some of the corporate jets out there now.
As another point, Boeing Field has had commerical air service before. Just because they don't now doesn't mean they shouldn't ever again. To me it is an interesting option that the Seattle area has.
I think Seattle and King County could drive a hard bargain for this airport and use it to their advantage - and maybe they should consider that.
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
I'm not missing the point at all. Southwest wants to move to a less expensive location so they can expand here and make more money. That's fine in and of itself. What's not fine is the large costs that will be passed on to the taxpayers. So what, we won't have to pay for the terminal and parking garage. We WILL have to pay for the roads to support this air service, the preparation to get this area ready for Southwest to build their terminal, any and all runway and taxiway improvements and the TSA to support their new operation. If Southwest wants to make this move then they should have to pay ALL the costs, then and only then will it be acceptable. They are, after all, the beneficiaries of this move. The people of Seattle won't be benefiting. The fares aren't going to drop because of this move.
If other airlines can come to SEA and mimic their style and make money then why can't WN do the same? If they can't compete on a level playing field then that's a problem they need to figure out, but somehow I don't think that's a problem for Southwest at all.
As far as Southwest's "lower" fares, other airlines compete with their fares, offering the same fare. Southwest shouldn't have an unfair competitive advantage so they can charge less. What's the point of that?
If Southwest is going to stay in the SEA market, and I suspect they will regardless of the outcome of this, then they will need to offer a competitive level of service in order to compete. That tells me that they won't be scaling back their operations all that much. They don't offer a huge number of nonstop flights to any of their current SEA destinations. If they can make more money in other markets then they have a responsibility to their stockholders to do that. It's that simple. Seattle already has an airport that airlines are welcome to serve. BFI is not it. What would you be saying if Southwest wanted to move to Hillsbourough airport in PDX and needed the taxpayers of PDX to pay for roadways, taxiways and what not?
If other airlines can come to SEA and mimic their style and make money then why can't WN do the same? If they can't compete on a level playing field then that's a problem they need to figure out, but somehow I don't think that's a problem for Southwest at all.
As far as Southwest's "lower" fares, other airlines compete with their fares, offering the same fare. Southwest shouldn't have an unfair competitive advantage so they can charge less. What's the point of that?
If Southwest is going to stay in the SEA market, and I suspect they will regardless of the outcome of this, then they will need to offer a competitive level of service in order to compete. That tells me that they won't be scaling back their operations all that much. They don't offer a huge number of nonstop flights to any of their current SEA destinations. If they can make more money in other markets then they have a responsibility to their stockholders to do that. It's that simple. Seattle already has an airport that airlines are welcome to serve. BFI is not it. What would you be saying if Southwest wanted to move to Hillsbourough airport in PDX and needed the taxpayers of PDX to pay for roadways, taxiways and what not?
Aug 13, 2005, 10:00 am
#14
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,956
I'm not gettin defensive about it at all - You're taking this way too personally. I was merely pointing out the facts as I see them.
I know how Southwest makes money and I know that's what they're all about. I don't believe that them moving to Boeing Field will be of benefit to anyone but them really.
My question about them moving to Hillsboro was not if they "expand" out there but just leave PDX for Hillsboro. I know you very much appreciate the air service at PDX, how would you feel if the WN part of it just left for another local airport, and you had to foot part of the bill for that because Southwest thought they could make more money at the other airport? If you want to quibble over semantics (whether Hillsboro had air service before or not, whether they could accomodate a 737) then let's use Salem as an example instead. They both had air service and can accomodate a 737 as they used to see them regularly on United.
I know how Southwest makes money and I know that's what they're all about. I don't believe that them moving to Boeing Field will be of benefit to anyone but them really.
My question about them moving to Hillsboro was not if they "expand" out there but just leave PDX for Hillsboro. I know you very much appreciate the air service at PDX, how would you feel if the WN part of it just left for another local airport, and you had to foot part of the bill for that because Southwest thought they could make more money at the other airport? If you want to quibble over semantics (whether Hillsboro had air service before or not, whether they could accomodate a 737) then let's use Salem as an example instead. They both had air service and can accomodate a 737 as they used to see them regularly on United.
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
Stop getting so defensive about it. I am merely pointing our their market niche and how they make money.
There is a cost to it, but I also believe that it could be good for the local economy if it is done correctly.
As for your comment about Hillsboro - I don't care if they expand out there. I don't think the runway could accomodate a 737, however. Personally, I think some of the people out there would welcome a Horizon or something. Its no different than some of the corporate jets out there now.
As another point, Boeing Field has had commerical air service before. Just because they don't now doesn't mean they shouldn't ever again. To me it is an interesting option that the Seattle area has.
I think Seattle and King County could drive a hard bargain for this airport and use it to their advantage - and maybe they should consider that.
There is a cost to it, but I also believe that it could be good for the local economy if it is done correctly.
As for your comment about Hillsboro - I don't care if they expand out there. I don't think the runway could accomodate a 737, however. Personally, I think some of the people out there would welcome a Horizon or something. Its no different than some of the corporate jets out there now.
As another point, Boeing Field has had commerical air service before. Just because they don't now doesn't mean they shouldn't ever again. To me it is an interesting option that the Seattle area has.
I think Seattle and King County could drive a hard bargain for this airport and use it to their advantage - and maybe they should consider that.
Aug 13, 2005, 4:24 pm
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,458
As a native of Seattle, now living in PHX, I believe that this whole discussion is posturing by WN. Even WN is affected by higher oil prices, so they are looking across their system for ways to reduce costs. One of the key components for WN is and has always been the cost of operating at a particular airport. That's why WN has been adamant about staying at Love Field in Dallas and not moving to DFW.
It is now time for the Port of Seattle to step up to the plate and reduce its future cost structure. Airlines are very strapped financially right now and the Port should do its part to help out.
Businesses do this all the time. Let's look at our capital projects and stretch the timelines out further. Let's delay some non-essential projects for a few years. While Terminal A and the Central Terminal look VERY nice, the question is: Are there less expensive ways to do the same thing? Now, Port of Seattle must step up to the plate and tighten its belt. They need to do a top to bottom review of ways to reduce costs.
It is now time for the Port of Seattle to step up to the plate and reduce its future cost structure. Airlines are very strapped financially right now and the Port should do its part to help out.
Businesses do this all the time. Let's look at our capital projects and stretch the timelines out further. Let's delay some non-essential projects for a few years. While Terminal A and the Central Terminal look VERY nice, the question is: Are there less expensive ways to do the same thing? Now, Port of Seattle must step up to the plate and tighten its belt. They need to do a top to bottom review of ways to reduce costs.