Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan - BUR/PDX on QX

I know I've seen this mentioned before but no definitive answer/information was ever given. Does anybody know what will happen to BUR/PDX route once the CRJ700s are phased out?? I sure wouldn't want to be stuck on a Q400 for that long of a flight.

Well, since all QX has are a) CRJs and b) Q400s (unless there's a Q200 lurking as a spare somewhere), they will be flying Q400s if and when they ditch the CRJs. I don't see there being enough demand to justify a 737 frequency from mainline from PDX to a secondary LA airport (considering that they can't fit it in now), and before you say "but I'll fly WN"... WN will make you stop in the Bay Area, as currently scheduled (no direct flights going PDX-BUR, though I suppose that could change), so you're not going to save any time on them.

You're screwed like the rest of the people living in PDX. I doubt I'll do any of my Bay Area flights on a Q400, since AS pulled main line service in May.

The CRJs are leaving the fleet as fast as a glacier moves down the mountain. There doesn't seem to be much of a market for the birds which means either Alaska has to fly them, park them in the desert and lose the money on them or transfer them to a 3rd party to operate for AS. Bottom line is that 2 out of those 3 options mean CRJs on Burbank. And it appears we have plenty of time to debate this and we don't need to stress over it yet.

and before you say "but I'll fly WN"... WN will make you stop in the Bay Area, as currently scheduled (no direct flights going PDX-BUR, though I suppose that could change), so you're not going to save any time on them.

I definitely wouldn't be saying that. I'll go out of my way and add to my travel time before I'd fly on WN. Especially since I can fly on UA via SFO or US via PHX. I know some people love WN but I sure dont!!

I guess the CRJs will stay for PDX-BUR route...I doubt 737 will service that route unless frequency is cut down.

what is the range of Q400? PDX-BUR is abot 900 miles, plus enough range for reserves to alternative airport and circle BUR a few times.

CRJs seems perfect for routes like PDX-SJC with enough traffic...just checked flights for June, PDX-SJC still CRJs (for now)

for those who heads for the Bay Area, there is still PDX-SFO and PDX-LAX on United on 737s.

for those who heads for the Bay Area, there is still PDX-SFO and PDX-LAX on United on 737s.

No. PDX-LAX is all United Express CRJ-700's. PDX-SFO is half United Express CRJ-700's, half mainline. (3/6 flights are mainline this summer)

Oh, and UA is and has been retiring all 737's.

Poor PDX :(

No. PDX-LAX is all United Express CRJ-700's. PDX-SFO is half United Express CRJ-700's, half mainline. (3/6 flights are mainline this summer)

Oh, and UA is and has been retiring all 737's.

Poor PDX :(

I'd actually prefer a UAX CRJ-700 over a QX CRJ-700 for two reason, First Class and Economy Plus..

I would love to see PDX-OAK-BUR and BUR-OAK-PDX in a 737. It's the same route as WN which would make it unlikely but I think the PDX-BUR crowd wouldn't mind stoping over at OAK instead of flying a Q400. I think this could be a win-win situation since a lot of people don't want to fly PDX-OAK in a Q400 either.

I would love to see PDX-OAK-BUR and BUR-OAK-PDX in a 737. It's the same route as WN which would make it unlikely but I think the PDX-BUR crowd wouldn't mind stoping over at OAK instead of flying a Q400. I think this could be a win-win situation since a lot of people don't want to fly PDX-OAK in a Q400 either.


^^^ Good idea!!

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

I would love to see PDX-OAK-BUR and BUR-OAK-PDX in a 737. It's the same route as WN which would make it unlikely but I think the PDX-BUR crowd wouldn't mind stoping over at OAK instead of flying a Q400. I think this could be a win-win situation since a lot of people don't want to fly PDX-OAK in a Q400 either.

That could also feed into AS' OAK-Hawaii service... But that would make for too much sense - :p

I definitely wouldn't be saying that. I'll go out of my way and add to my travel time before I'd fly on WN. Especially since I can fly on UA via SFO or US via PHX. I know some people love WN but I sure dont!!

BUR-PHX-PDX takes at least 6 hours on US, not my idea of fun. In any case, WN is the only way to get from BUR to anywhere directly (with the exception of SEA) on the west coast without flying an RJ.

I flew AS's BUR-PDX mainline service several times back when they had it, and the plane was usually full but rarely on time. I've also done the WN thing from BUR to both PDX and SEA via OAK, SMF, SJC, and even LAS. It ends up taking about an hour longer than going nonstop, but it sure beats making a connection in SFO or PHX.

I could see AS bring BUR-PDX back, after all they did it with LGB.

BUR-PHX-PDX takes at least 6 hours on US, not my idea of fun. In any case, WN is the only way to get from BUR to anywhere directly (with the exception of SEA) on the west coast without flying an RJ.

I flew AS's BUR-PDX mainline service several times back when they had it, and the plane was usually full but rarely on time. I've also done the WN thing from BUR to both PDX and SEA via OAK, SMF, SJC, and even LAS. It ends up taking about an hour longer than going nonstop, but it sure beats making a connection in SFO or PHX.

I could see AS bring BUR-PDX back, after all they did it with LGB.

Rather fly to BUR thru SFO (on UA) or thru SEA (on AS) if AS/QX stops using CRJ/737s from BUR-PDX. I am still grateful AS have a hub in PDX...

Every time I head for BUR on AS/QX, I either arrive early and ended up being late when BUR finds a empty gate to park AND/OR late departure despite the fact we close the doors at T-10 to T-15..

I would LOVE to see AS bring back PDX BUR! LAX has a BR and a lot more flights, but BUR is so much easier. I stopped flying into BUR when they changed to the Horizon flights. That's a long time to be on those little planes, and NOT every seat is FC as I'm so tired of hearing. If you don't drink beer or wine, I'm paying the same or even more for a flight that has no real MVP benefits for me!

I'll go out of my way and add to my travel time before I'd fly on WN. Especially since I can fly on UA via SFO or US via PHX. I know some people love WN but I sure dont!!

Because flying through SFO is such a time saver when they go on flow control and you have 2-2.5 hour delays for five months at a time. :p

Because flying through SFO is such a time saver when they go on flow control and you have 2-2.5 hour delays for five months at a time. :p

Nobody said UA would be quicker but as I mentioned, I'd rather add to my travel time then fly on WN.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)



That could also feed into AS' OAK-Hawaii service... But that would make for too much sense - :p

It actually doesn't make that much sense at all. If the Oakland - Hawaii flights cannot survive on their own, I fail to see the point of starting them to begin with especially if it is necessary to feed them from Portland which is also getting AS-Hawaii flights.

Additionally, if Horizon started PDX-OAK-BUR on a Q400, I bet a lot of people would take the opportunity to simply switch to Southwest anyway if the choices to get there on the same routing were between a Q400 and 737.

I think airports like Ontario, Oakland and even Burbank for that matter should be happy to retain any service at all. Oakland and Ontario have been hit particularly hard and people would be well minded to start appreciating what is left instead of complaining about short 2 hour flights on CRJs.

It actually doesn't make that much sense at all. If the Oakland - Hawaii flights cannot survive on their own, I fail to see the point of starting them to begin with especially if it is necessary to feed them from Portland which is also getting AS-Hawaii flights.

Additionally, if Horizon started PDX-OAK-BUR on a Q400, I bet a lot of people would take the opportunity to simply switch to Southwest anyway if the choices to get there on the same routing were between a Q400 and 737.

I think airports like Ontario, Oakland and even Burbank for that matter should be happy to retain any service at all. Oakland and Ontario have been hit particularly hard and people would be well minded to start appreciating what is left instead of complaining about short 2 hour flights on CRJs.

I was thinking BUR-OAK feed... not so much PDX-OAK... (Not sure if a BUR would fly to OAK to get to OGG/KOA... then again it might be better then waiting for an interisland flight in HNL...

I was thinking BUR-OAK feed... not so much PDX-OAK... (Not sure if a BUR would fly to OAK to get to OGG/KOA... then again it might be better then waiting for an interisland flight in HNL...

DL, AA and UA have LAX nonstops to OGG and KOA. I've driven the 405 from the Valley to LAX during rush hour, and yes, it made me want to slit my wrists (the traffic makes the SEA 405 pale in comparison), but I don't see people taking a jet to OAK to fly to Hawaii from the Valley.

FWIW, Aloha used to fly out of BUR.

Nobody said UA would be quicker but as I mentioned, I'd rather add to my travel time then fly on WN.

Right, but seriously, you'd rather risk long delays at SFO than fly direct on a Q400, which maybe adds 30 minutes to the flight length? Sure, you get E+ and F, even on their CRJs, but you could easily be looking at turning 2 hours of flight time into 6 if things go pear-shaped at SFO. Is a turboprop really THAT awful?

US is fairly similar- if the timing of the connection isn't perfect, welcome to a 6+ hour trip (and there's no E+ on US), and even if it is you're pushing 5 hours.

See, THAT is the reason I cite WN- the other options turn something that's pretty damned quick (I can easily leave downtown Seattle on a Friday evening at 5 and be at LAX/BUR/LGB by 9- I"d assume PDX is fairly similar) into a 6-8 hour monstrosity that kills your day like a transcon flight. WN has decent turn times at least and is flying into the realistic airports that aren't poor connection choices (OAK and SJC, or maybe SMF or RNO), even though you'd still be adding a stop and slowing yourself down compared to a direct flight on a Q400. I'd rather get there faster in coach with a bag of peanuts than idle in luxury, when it gets down to it.

US is fairly similar- if the timing of the connection isn't perfect, welcome to a 6+ hour trip (and there's no E+ on US), and even if it is you're pushing 5 hours.

I suppose some folks are just anti-WN on principle. As much as I enjoy riding in F, I absolutely hate wasting time making connections in places like PHX when I have somewhere I need to be. You may as well just connect in SEA if you're gonna play that game and you won't be 1000 miles away if you get stuck.


See, THAT is the reason I cite WN- the other options turn something that's pretty damned quick (I can easily leave downtown Seattle on a Friday evening at 5 and be at LAX/BUR/LGB by 9- I"d assume PDX is fairly similar) into a 6-8 hour monstrosity that kills your day like a transcon flight. WN has decent turn times at least and is flying into the realistic airports that aren't poor connection choices (OAK and SJC, or maybe SMF or RNO), even though you'd still be adding a stop and slowing yourself down compared to a direct flight on a Q400. I'd rather get there faster in coach with a bag of peanuts than idle in luxury, when it gets down to it.

The BUR-SMF-SEA trip on WN can take as little as 3 hours when things go according to plan. Compared to the Q400, it's probably a wash. The question is, would they fly BUR-PDX on a Q400? If faced with that option, I'd probably make the schlep to LAX for a mainline flight or just take WN.