PDX-MSP
PDX-EWR
PDX-ATL (the return of this route)
Would all be at the top of my wish list for new routes.

dreaming for SAN-YVR. Not one direct flight!

While I understand that the -400 is becoming disfavored by the flying public for the most part, replacing a -400 (or a -700) 1:1 with a -900ER, especially on thinner routes, means while we may have a shiny new plane, we will probably see less frequency to accommodate the increase in seats... I really like the -700 and wish they would keep them (and do the power/slim line, etc) for the thinner routes, such as xSLC or even xANC.

Hoping for a SEA-IND route.

Wirelessly posted (beckoa's BB: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9810; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.1.0.694 Mobile Safari/534.11+)

RDU from anywhere?

But its yet to be seen if this is a net replacement of aircraft with a 25% in seats, or an actual gain in aircraft count. Those 734 & 73G leases seem to keep extending ;)

Please PDX-EWR.

Stopped flying the Delta PDX-JFK direct due to MP changes this year. It's kind of a drag heading up to Seattle to get to EWR.

I'm confused about what Alaska plans to do with the 737-700s and 400s. Are they going to be updated with the new seats/power/IFE? Seems like Alaska wants to create a unified customer experience, these planes need to be updated, unless Alaska is really planning on phasing them all out in 2 years.

Air Canada flew SAN-YVR nonstop for a while but discontinued it in 2013.

Alaska also flew this route in the mid-2000s.

That's not how it works.

-400/700 flights get ungauged to a -800; routinely full -800s move to -900s unless range or takeoff performance is a factor.

Basically, AS is saying that the total fuel cost of the -400 is exactly the same as a -900ER. The benefit of the -900ER is that it has 25% more seats. The labor cost of the -900ER will be somewhat higher because of the need for 1 more FA. So, if a route was profitable with the -400, it will likely be profitable with the -900ER despite the increase in seats.

YYZ, YUL?


If the 400 is paid off and the 900ER has a car payment, that plays in as well.

I'm not disagreeing with AS's strategy -- they have a low cost structure and seem to be smart with expansion -- but there is a huge cost to new planes. The new plane obsession is what leveraged CO to the hilt and basically required that they merge.

-400 and -700's are getting hand-me down 'new' seats from the -800 and -900's. No more super-cushy FC seats on the -400's which I'll miss...reminds me of the old 727's! ;)

They'll be outfitted with the streaming entertainment (Alaska Beyond) along with the already-installed gogo wifi but will not be getting seat-power. Was on a -700 a couple of days ago with the streaming movies...love it!

ALK has a pretty good balance sheet. They've pre-funded their pension program and they're generally smart about their operations. I wouldn't be terribly worried.

Now, if these were 787s or 777s... :eek:

Wirelessly posted (beckoa's BB: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9810; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.1.0.694 Mobile Safari/534.11+)

Glad to see 734's getting Alaska beyond servers (and tablets too right?).

I've noticed the 73H seats going into them too...like the adjustable headrests ^

And as these are shorter flights the lack of power isn't the end of the world for me.

These refinements seem to indicate the A/c will stick around for a bit longer.