Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan - Ontario

The route from PDX to ONT used to be on Alaska and have 737s and MD-80s. Now the route is on Horizon's CRJs. I heard that Alaska took the 737s and MD-80s to use on Alaska's new routes, e.g., Boston, and gave the route to Horizon. Any info on if Alaska will take the route back from Horizon and use larger jets with 1st class?

The route from PDX to ONT used to be on Alaska and have 737s and MD-80s. Now the route is on Horizon's CRJs. I heard that Alaska took the 737s and MD-80s to use on Alaska's new routes, e.g., Boston, and gave the route to Horizon. Any info on if Alaska will take the route back from Horizon and use larger jets with 1st class?

I don't believe Boston is new service. AS has had flights to BOS for years. The recently resumed service to MIA is on a new delivery 737-800 so that is not a factor.

I think they probably just are using the AS planes in markets that needed more capacity or...

perhaps the newly expanded service from PDX to MEX or the new service from SEA-DFW is taking the AS aircraft.

The route from PDX to ONT used to be on Alaska and have 737s and MD-80s. Now the route is on Horizon's CRJs. I heard that Alaska took the 737s and MD-80s to use on Alaska's new routes, e.g., Boston, and gave the route to Horizon. Any info on if Alaska will take the route back from Horizon and use larger jets with 1st class?

What are the loads like on the smaller planes?

From what I understand, QX has been taking over a lot of former AS mainline routes ex-PDX, as QX has taken delivery of Q400's and CRJ-700's that can run longer routes and AS has seen more profitable opportunities to fly 737's east.

What are the loads like on the smaller planes?

From what I understand, QX has been taking over a lot of former AS mainline routes ex-PDX, as QX has taken delivery of Q400's and CRJ-700's that can run longer routes and AS has seen more profitable opportunities to fly 737's east.

Packed. :mad: It is funny to see the faces on the people on vacation since they expect a larger plane. I presumed the decision was about $$$. Let me know if you hear of a nonstop from PDX -- ONT since if there is one or as soon as another carrier has a nonstop from PDX -- ONT I, as well as other road warriors who I have spoken with, will vote with our feet!

I don't believe Boston is new service. AS has had flights to BOS for years. The recently resumed service to MIA is on a new delivery 737-800 so that is not a factor.

I think they probably just are using the AS planes in markets that needed more capacity or...

perhaps the newly expanded service from PDX to MEX or the new service from SEA-DFW is taking the AS aircraft.

(poor taste comment about the loss of AS261 removed by SEA_Tigger).

How about one real jet a day since I would be on that flight?

(quote of poor taste comment about the loss of AS261 removed by SEA_Tigger).

Congratulations!

In only your third post on FT, you managed to spout off something utterly tasteless and completely inappropriate.

(quote of poor taste comment about the loss of AS261 removed by SEA_Tigger).

If this is how you truly feel, please fly on another airline, we don't want and don't need business from individuals like yourself!

<Moderator Comment>

OK folks, let's keep it civil. Some of you are new to this forum, I can see, and we're a pretty quiet and friendly place, which we'd like to keep it that way.

Kirken's comment about AS261 (?) was in poor-taste, but taking them on over it in this forum does not make it any better. If you have issues with their comment, please use P(rivate) M(essaging) to express them.

Thank you.

(quote of poor taste comment about the loss of AS261 removed by SEA_Tigger).

I'm just wondering who this was intended to hurt? The people here that work for Alaska that had many friends on board or management that may, or may not, read this forum. In case you were intending to wound the employees that lost many friends on this flight, you scored.

For the record, however, we don't have the ability to do anything about the lack of a mainline jet on this route, so you're barking up the wrong tree. I suppose if there was more money to be had on a route from ONT-PDX, management would add some bigger planes. They haven't - that speaks volumes about this subject to me.

To back up SEA-Tigger, let me ask all parties that we keep this thread on the subject of AS routes to/from ONT/PDX and not on personal or non-related issues.
Thanks for your cooperation.

__________________________


Cholula
Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan Co-Moderator

I'm just wondering who this was intended to hurt? The people here that work for Alaska that had many friends on board or management that may, or may not, read this forum. In case you were intending to wound the employees that lost many friends on this flight, you scored.

For the record, however, we don't have the ability to do anything about the lack of a mainline jet on this route, so you're barking up the wrong tree. I suppose if there was more money to be had on a route from ONT-PDX, management would add some bigger planes. They haven't - that speaks volumes about this subject to me.

I apologize to you and everyone else for my comment and I did not intend on hurt anyone especially the great crews on AS. My bad. My issue is with management that in my opinion worries more about cost and "flow" than the safety and comfort of the crews and passengers. I have written management about the situation with PDX - ONT, and the response was management is "monitoring the situation." The issue is getting back to our families safely. Once again I am sorry.

I didn't see the original comments that started this firestorm...and I'm glad I didn't. All the same, thank you for apologizing Kirken and welcome to the AS board. It's a great one that largely remains pleasant and fun. Please continue to come around and please continue asking/answering questions. and while you are at it remember that AS/QX are a great duo even if you get stuck on RJ'S sometimes! :D

Your FT friend,
-levi aka eastwest

I apologize to you and everyone else for my comment and I did not intend on hurt anyone especially the great crews on AS. My bad. My issue is with management that in my opinion worries more about cost and "flow" than the safety and comfort of the crews and passengers. I have written management about the situation with PDX - ONT, and the response was management is "monitoring the situation." The issue is getting back to our families safely. Once again I am sorry.

I understand the frustration in having to fly a regional jet on an 800+ mile flight. Unfortunately, ONT sees less traffic and has lower yields from PDX than SNA or LAX and QX is the best way to provide an acceptable frequency of flights without operating at a loss.

Costs and revenue are the key to a sustainable business model and the focus of any competent management team. The comfort of passengers and crew is important, but unfortunately does not pay the bills unless you're in long-term bankruptcy protection.

I understand the frustration in having to fly a regional jet on an 800+ mile flight. Unfortunately, ONT sees less traffic and has lower yields from PDX than SNA or LAX and QX is the best way to provide an acceptable frequency of flights without operating at a loss.

Costs and revenue are the key to a sustainable business model and the focus of any competent management team. The comfort of passengers and crew is important, but unfortunately does not pay the bills unless you're in long-term bankruptcy protection.

I have not flown in a CRJ, so I may be out of line here, but...It seems to me that free beer, wine & snacks, in a JET with an outstanding (by previous remarks) crew can't be all that bad. Yeah, it may be smaller, but you still get there.

As "our-eternal-friends-the-Saudis"® make more and more $$$ (to help raise more well-adjusted children?) off of the price of a barrel of oil each day, the Dash-8 (and the ATR-42/72) are getting a second look by many airlines.

Who would have thought that the Dash-8-200 would still be in production after the CRJ200 was discontinued?

I have not flown in a CRJ, so I may be out of line here, but...It seems to me that free beer, wine & snacks, in a JET with an outstanding (by previous remarks) crew can't be all that bad. Yeah, it may be smaller, but you still get there.


Ironically, CRJ's generally fly higher and faster than mainline jets. It's just that cramped, claustrophobic cabin that gets to some of us.
I can handle a CRJ on flights less than two hours but, unfortunately, have been subjected to some 3+ hour flights on one.
DL dropped mainline service from ONT to DFW a couple years ago and now flies the route with CRJ's exclusively.
I do what I can to avoid the CRJ but sometimes they are unavoidable.

DL dropped mainline service from ONT to DFW a couple years ago and now flies the route with CRJ's exclusively...

DL dropped its DFW hub completely back in January.

As "our-eternal-friends-the-Saudis"® make more and more $$$ (to help raise more well-adjusted children?) off of the price of a barrel of oil each day, the Dash-8 (and the ATR-42/72) are getting a second look by many airlines.

Who would have thought that the Dash-8-200 would still be in production after the CRJ200 was discontinued?

I'm not sure that the Saudi's deserve the blame here. The RJ math never really worked, even with moderate fuel prices, cramped cabins, and low paid commuter airline crews. For some reason, airlines jumped on the RJ bandwagon because their commuter subsidiaries could fly them.

You know, whether we like it or not...this is the way some of the airlines are going. I just booked SEA-PVR on HP and several of my return options were:
PVR - PHX CRJ
PHX - SEA CRJ

At least AS/QX is still providing nonstop service in one form or another; it could be worse ie. DH8!!!

Gotta say, while I don't really like the CRJ-200 (and I haven't yet been on a -700), I like both QX's Q400's and the comparable ATR-72-500. Quiet, smooth... I think people have bad feelings about turboprops based on older models, such that marketing rather than dollars and cents (sense?) has been driving the move to RJ's by AA, CO, DL, etc. But the higher CASM of the smaller RJ's is a problem for them on competitive routes.

The CR7s do seem a bit more spacious than the -200, possibly just because of the length. One of the worst parts of the CRJ-200 is the window placement- basically it's as if they imagine your eyes to be in your knees.

I think the Q400 is the class of the QX fleet.

DL dropped its DFW hub completely back in January.


Yeah, I realize that. As someone who has lived most of his adult life onboard a DL jet, getting to know the CRJ's has been painful.
Even though DL "de-hubbed" DFW, they still have quite a few flights in and out of there daily.

The RJ math never really worked, even with moderate fuel prices, cramped cabins, and low paid commuter airline crews.

I understand that an RJ over a given stage length is more expensive to operate per passenger then a 737/Airbus, assuming both are filled. But if a 737/Airbus is running at 1/3rd to 1/2th capacity, and the RJ is full, would not the RJ be the better choice?

I mean all of the majors continue to divest themselves of mainline service in favor of RJs. If the economies of scale were truly that poor for an RJ, I don't understand why they would want to do so, even though the majors are all boneheads. :D

I can understand some of the shift is to maintain frequencies (if you don't fly when someone wants to go, they will pick another carrier), so using smaller jets allows you to not have to consolidate flights onto fewer larger jets. You can keep eight RJs a day in the air instead of four 737s.

The airlines have discovered that smaller regional jets that seat around 50 people are not the answer when fuel costs are high. It is harder to spread the cost on a smaller plane. More and more airlines are getting rid of these types of aircraft and the orders have all but dried up.

I think a big driver for RJs was lower crew costs. With fuel now so expensive, though, that cost advantage has been largely offset.

Yeah, I'm no industry insider, but I think that RJ's pilots make significantly (as in about 2/3's) less than mainline pilots...That had to be a contributing factor at one point.

Yeah, I'm no industry insider, but I think that RJ's pilots make significantly (as in about 2/3's) less than mainline pilots...That had to be a contributing factor at one point.

And are also about 2/3's younger! :p Last one I was on, I wondered if the pilot would have been old enough to drink the free beer were he in the cabin!

Packed. :mad: It is funny to see the faces on the people on vacation since they expect a larger plane. I presumed the decision was about $$$. Let me know if you hear of a nonstop from PDX -- ONT since if there is one or as soon as another carrier has a nonstop from PDX -- ONT I, as well as other road warriors who I have spoken with, will vote with our feet!

The route is performing better than ever. QX allowed the company the ability to add 2 extra frequencies to balance out the smaller jet. 5 non-stops per day vs 3 on AS. It appears to be the right balance.

And are also about 2/3's younger! :p Last one I was on, I wondered if the pilot would have been old enough to drink the free beer were he in the cabin!

Who said he wasn't? :D

You should see the looks I get from FA's when I put in my drink order. "Whatever beer the captain is having." The reaction goes all the way from super serious or offended, "Sir,they cannot drink on the job!" to playing along, "Well, the first officer isn't really driving, so he has a Heineken."

The route is performing better than ever. QX allowed the company the ability to add 2 extra frequencies to balance out the smaller jet. 5 non-stops per day vs 3 on AS. It appears to be the right balance.

RASMguy makes a good point on this. This change does seem to be about frequencies and fleet utilization. It used to be 3X130ish=~390 seats. Currently 5X70=350 seats. Not a big change in capacity, but much imporved frequencies and departure times. When it was an AS only route, the first flight out of ONT was about 9:30, and if I recall, the last one out was around 4:30. I remember once having to take the 6:30 SEA flight in order to get home for a noon meeting.

Ironically, there are only 3 departures to SEA a day, and the last one at 4:50. I can't think of many markets where PDX has better service than SEA!

Ironically, there are only 3 departures to SEA a day, and the last one at 4:50. I can't think of many markets where PDX has better service than SEA!

I bet there's quite a bit of onward connecting traffic to SEA on the later flight(s). And if so, I wonder if that model will be applied on other less-busy routes.

ok, joining this discussion late in the game, but you could always just decide to BE HAPPY that there's a nonstop. That you don't have to fly WN and change planes in SJC or OAK. Or take TED up to SFO and potentially get delayed at your connecting point.

If you look at AS's entire history of serving ONT, there were years and years (and I remember making those flights frequently) of practically every PDX-ONT or SEA-ONT flight stopping in BURBANK!! with a continuing hop on an MD-80 to ONT.

Horizon has some great perks that definitely compensate for a smaller cabin, non-mainline jet, etc. etc.

RASMguy makes a good point on this. This change does seem to be about frequencies and fleet utilization. It used to be 3X130ish=~390 seats. Currently 5X70=350 seats. Not a big change in capacity, but much imporved frequencies and departure times. When it was an AS only route, the first flight out of ONT was about 9:30, and if I recall, the last one out was around 4:30. I remember once having to take the 6:30 SEA flight in order to get home for a noon meeting.

Ironically, there are only 3 departures to SEA a day, and the last one at 4:50. I can't think of many markets where PDX has better service than SEA!

I agree that it probably is a frequency issue (but maybe a lack of main line jet for this route???) -- I will admit that I have no info on this – since I would presume that it is more expensive to fly 5 turns with a RJ than 3 turns with a main line jet, unless the crew costs are much less, i.e., younger QX crew and one less FA. For me when I am flying, I would rather have less frequency and have old, experienced AS pilots in a main line jet than have more frequency and young QX pilots in a RJ.

For me when I am flying, I would rather have less frequency and have old, experienced AS pilots in a main line jet than have more frequency and young QX pilots in a RJ.

Amen.

For me when I am flying, I would rather have less frequency and have old, experienced AS pilots in a main line jet than have more frequency and young QX pilots in a RJ.

British Airways has a young twenty-something as a Captain on an Airbus A319, which is right around the size of AS' 737-700s. ;)

RASMguy makes a good point on this. This change does seem to be about frequencies and fleet utilization. It used to be 3X130ish=~390 seats. Currently 5X70=350 seats. Not a big change in capacity, but much imporved frequencies and departure times. When it was an AS only route, the first flight out of ONT was about 9:30, and if I recall, the last one out was around 4:30. I remember once having to take the 6:30 SEA flight in order to get home for a noon meeting.

Ironically, there are only 3 departures to SEA a day, and the last one at 4:50. I can't think of many markets where PDX has better service than SEA!

ONT has 4 departures to SEA per day.

ONT has 4 departures to SEA per day.

And one is late, don't know how I missed that one. My bad!