FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Alaska Airlines | Mileage Plan (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan-442/)
-   -   Really light load LAX-PDX this morning at 8am (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan/1095914-really-light-load-lax-pdx-morning-8am.html)

Blair_C Jun 15, 10 2:53 pm

Really light load LAX-PDX this morning at 8am
 
I was really surprised. Entire rows were empty. It was a very welcome change and couple that with WiFi it let me get a lot of work done on a very short flight. ^

lax.sea.jnu Jun 15, 10 2:58 pm

I was on the LAX-PDX 6am flight last week. There was only 1 other revenue passenger in F, and probably 30 people in Y. If this is regular I imagine either the 6 or the 8 am flight will be discontinued. May I add though that the service in F was excellent. Very good breakfast, pre-departure beverage service.

dabears1020 Jun 15, 10 4:54 pm


Originally Posted by lax.sea.jnu (Post 14137782)
I was on the LAX-PDX 6am flight last week. There was only 1 other revenue passenger in F, and probably 30 people in Y. If this is regular I imagine either the 6 or the 8 am flight will be discontinued. May I add though that the service in F was excellent. Very good breakfast, pre-departure beverage service.

I experienced this the other day as well. I wonder if perhaps this is slowly becoming more normal with AS? Pre-departure drinks are huge for me, I would love it if it became a regular thing.

CDKing Jun 15, 10 7:30 pm

A couple saturdays ago I was sitting waiting for my evening flight to ANC. They were boarding the PDX-LAX flight at the next gate over. They called F and MVPG and one person boarded . They called all rows and maybe 15-20 people boarded.

formeraa Jun 18, 10 4:10 pm

This doesn't bode well for the LAX-PDX route. AS is not making money with these types of loads!

golfingboy Jun 18, 10 4:24 pm

I bet this issue is happening on all carriers.... Nobody ain't gonna pay $251++ to fly LAX-PDX... Rip-off fares, I think PDX is going to be the next CVG where the average fares are ridiculously high.

Also, the business/government sector is not as big in PDX compared to other cities, so this route depends on significant amount of VFR traffic. So, with $250 fares, people will only go to PDX only if necessary, not for pure enjoyment.

Until the fares for this route goes down around the same level as LAX-DEN, they won't be seeing much traffic. Welcome to the era of the customer-centric market. If we do not value the price for the service we will obtain, you betcha we ain't flying!

sxf24 Jun 18, 10 8:15 pm


Originally Posted by golfingboy (Post 14157335)
I bet this issue is happening on all carriers.... Nobody ain't gonna pay $251++ to fly LAX-PDX... Rip-off fares, I think PDX is going to be the next CVG where the average fares are ridiculously high.

Also, the business/government sector is not as big in PDX compared to other cities, so this route depends on significant amount of VFR traffic. So, with $250 fares, people will only go to PDX only if necessary, not for pure enjoyment.

Until the fares for this route goes down around the same level as LAX-DEN, they won't be seeing much traffic. Welcome to the era of the customer-centric market. If we do not value the price for the service we will obtain, you betcha we ain't flying!

If all fares were at LAX-DEN levels, the planes would only be full until the airlines went out of business.

tusphotog Jun 18, 10 8:43 pm

Almost every time I've taken the really late PDX-LAX flight, it's stuffed to the gills. I can only think of one time when it wasn't and that was in the middle of January. Even that flight had 130-140 people on it.

As for PDX being the next CVG: there's a rather large WN presence at PDX, unlike CVG.

golfingboy Jun 18, 10 9:31 pm


Originally Posted by tusphotog (Post 14158509)
Almost every time I've taken the really late PDX-LAX flight, it's stuffed to the gills. I can only think of one time when it wasn't and that was in the middle of January. Even that flight had 130-140 people on it.

As for PDX being the next CVG: there's a rather large WN presence at PDX, unlike CVG.

Same here, although I only flew the route once, but it was packed. At that time, fares were around $179+ R/T...

While I do not expect fares to go as low as DEN, but it should be at least around $199, not $250-$350...

IIRC, the average fare out of CVG was $340 or something... WN no longer has a significant competitive advantage with fuel hedges [ended in 2009 when the oil prices flopped to $35 per barrel], so I think they are just merely matching the fares of all airlines in PDX. As a matter of fact WN is charging higher than their normal price range out of PDX [calling $209+ OW PDX-BWI on a Wednesday a great fare]...

Checked the Passenger Traffic Report for PDX and as of April 2010, the #s are pretty much flat lining YTD [-.01%] which is absolutely not good for PDX since 2009 is the worst year since 9/11.

eponymous_coward Jun 18, 10 10:07 pm


Until the fares for this route goes down around the same level as LAX-DEN, they won't be seeing much traffic. Welcome to the era of the customer-centric market. If we do not value the price for the service we will obtain, you betcha we ain't flying!
That's fine- and then we'll see airlines cease service until such time as supply and demand balance out in such a way that the airline service provided is valuable to whatever customers do fly, as well as to an airline.

"We lose money on each sale, but make up for it in volume" is a lousy way to run an airline, though I am sure it would be considered "customer-centric".

Also, this sort of bodes poorly for the "We less than three PDX" initiative if PDX-LAX isn't doing so hot. I would think LAX is one of AS's largest potential O/D markets out of PDX.

dabears1020 Jun 18, 10 11:00 pm

Wow, I can't believe how bad this route is hurting. I just booked a mileage run on Tues 7/13, and my first flight is LAX-PDX at 6am. Just checked the seat map, and there are a grand total of 14 seats taken.

Less than a month out and 14 confirmed seats on a 737-800. Not looking good at all. At this rate I'd expect this route to go down to CR7s.

golfingboy Jun 19, 10 2:25 am


Originally Posted by eponymous_coward (Post 14158873)
That's fine- and then we'll see airlines cease service until such time as supply and demand balance out in such a way that the airline service provided is valuable to whatever customers do fly, as well as to an airline.

"We lose money on each sale, but make up for it in volume" is a lousy way to run an airline, though I am sure it would be considered "customer-centric".

Yeah... $250-300 is probably one of the highest average CPM [around 17 CPM] out of all routes between every major cities across the lower 48... Whats more, PDX and LAX should be one of AS's lower "cost" operations [if use ABC system, the hub airports should be one of the cheaper airports per flight unless something is afoul], so PDX-LAX can afford to be lower rather than say PDX-BUR/ONT/SNA.

They better start dropping fares ex PDX or they are going to lose PDX :( PDX is not hub captive like ANC or SEA [SEA is borderline captive just like MSP even with LCCs].

Some routes can afford to have higher fares, some just can't and remember CA is still struggling financially, so you have to factor that in... Other states should recover faster than "The Golden State" :rolleyes:

eponymous_coward Jun 19, 10 9:56 am


WN no longer has a significant competitive advantage with fuel hedges [ended in 2009 when the oil prices flopped to $35 per barrel]
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1536...iable-position


Southwest (LUV) is flying in the completely opposite direction and has already hedged about 47% of its planned 2010 fuel purchases. Additionally it has pledged $425MM in cash as collateral on hedges it has stretching as far into the future as 2013.
Also, it's not just PDX. Go look at SEA-LAX prices while you're at it. (And no, SEA is not the same kind of captive/fortress hub as MSP. DL is not exposed to any LCC on a huge percentage of their routes out of hubs like MSP and ATL. AS is. As the Sesame Street song goes, "one of these things is not like the other...")

Crude's also $80 now (and that's historically very high). Don't you think that has just a touch to do with why airfares are higher than what they would be historically? Or is AS supposed to ignore what their cost inputs are and set fares to what they were during the worst recession in 60 years- a time where airlines were losing buckets of money?

tusphotog Jun 19, 10 12:44 pm


Originally Posted by golfingboy (Post 14158715)
As a matter of fact WN is charging higher than their normal price range out of PDX [calling $209+ OW PDX-BWI on a Wednesday a great fare]...

Compare the WN full Y fare to another airline's full Y fare. For example WN is $439 to BWI. UA is $444 to BWI, so a wash. But switch to DCA and the price is $844 or just under $700 if you want to change planes 2 times on UA.

Xero Jun 21, 10 6:26 pm

I have always wondered why everything that flies to PDX is so expensive. The only route from California to PDX that has a more reasonable cost per mile is SMF-PDX. But SMF is a small airport, so why would this bring lower fares?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:53 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.