Alaska expresses interest in twin aisle 797
Mar 9, 2017, 5:33 pm
#17
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: SEA
Programs: Hilton/Marriott Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 2,036
The end of the DL partnership does mean there are some holes in the partner network--no earning opportunities on PDX/SEA-AMS/NRT, for example--but it's entirely possible AS primarily wants more seats on one plane than a 9MAX can provide.
Mar 9, 2017, 5:42 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,842
Mar 9, 2017, 8:44 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: home = LAX
Posts: 25,933
But OTOH is the range in "perfect" weather? So bad weather might decrease the range.
Do you want Alaska to join those legacy airlines who try to do 757 nonstop flights across the Atlantic but every so often have to stop somewhere along the way to refuel on the way back
because conditions didn't allow them to fly the scheduled route nonstop? 
I'd rather Alaska not push its planes that far...
Mar 9, 2017, 10:02 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,386
Actually, range is based in part on weight. So they don't need to glide, they just to not fully book the plane so that it's lighter.
But OTOH is the range in "perfect" weather? So bad weather might decrease the range.
Do you want Alaska to join those legacy airlines who try to do 757 nonstop flights across the Atlantic but every so often have to stop somewhere along the way to refuel on the way back because conditions didn't allow them to fly the scheduled route nonstop?
I'd rather Alaska not push its planes that far...
But OTOH is the range in "perfect" weather? So bad weather might decrease the range.
Do you want Alaska to join those legacy airlines who try to do 757 nonstop flights across the Atlantic but every so often have to stop somewhere along the way to refuel on the way back
because conditions didn't allow them to fly the scheduled route nonstop? I'd rather Alaska not push its planes that far...
Mar 10, 2017, 12:21 am
#21
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Internet
Programs: Alaska Mileage Plan
Posts: 714
SEA-NRT or SEA-HNL-NRT would make the most sense if the plans are international given the JAL partnership; there isn't any good way to get to Asia on Alaska's partners from Seattle. I don't see SEA-LHR happening, BA directly competes on that route and Delta failed on it.
However, I don't think that's Alaska's plan. I am guessing their plan is to upgauge select longer routes, such as in the summer to Anchorage and in the winter to Hawaii. The schedule is beyond ridiculous with morning frequencies to some destinations, and this isn't helping air traffic at Sea-Tac either. Of course, having the 797 gives them the ability to gain experience with a longer-haul aircraft and to add international service later.
However, I don't think that's Alaska's plan. I am guessing their plan is to upgauge select longer routes, such as in the summer to Anchorage and in the winter to Hawaii. The schedule is beyond ridiculous with morning frequencies to some destinations, and this isn't helping air traffic at Sea-Tac either. Of course, having the 797 gives them the ability to gain experience with a longer-haul aircraft and to add international service later.
Mar 10, 2017, 9:20 am
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,386
You are asking about upgrade policy on a plane that only exists on paper, and won't be in service before the middle of the next decade, IF it gets built. So I would go with "why would you expect anyone to have any sort of a clue?"
Mar 10, 2017, 9:34 am
#24
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: PAE
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75k / AS Boardroom
Posts: 168
Your Honor, I present to you Exhibit A - further evidence of the internet being a poor vehicle to use sarcasm.
Mar 10, 2017, 11:31 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,458
Mar 10, 2017, 1:50 pm
#27
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bend, OR
Programs: AS 100k, UA Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 228
I would be incredibly happy to see a twin-aisle in the fleet! SEA/PDX to LHR sounds good with options to connect to BA. DL is starting PDX-LHR in May.
Also opens up options for South America, especially out of LAX.
Also opens up options for South America, especially out of LAX.
Mar 10, 2017, 2:10 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
SEA-NRT or SEA-HNL-NRT would make the most sense if the plans are international given the JAL partnership; there isn't any good way to get to Asia on Alaska's partners from Seattle. I don't see SEA-LHR happening, BA directly competes on that route and Delta failed on it.
No, AS isn't likely to fly SEA-LHR with two competitors on it already.
Mar 10, 2017, 6:28 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,386
You mean like how AS doesn't fly SEA-LAS with three competitors? SEA-LAX?
What's AS going to fly a longhaul plane on, ANC-GDL? PDX-TXL? There aren't a lot of untapped markets sans completion out of SEA you could fly longhaul on. SFO and LAX are no better.
What's AS going to fly a longhaul plane on, ANC-GDL? PDX-TXL? There aren't a lot of untapped markets sans completion out of SEA you could fly longhaul on. SFO and LAX are no better.