PAE-GEG is coming!
Aug 15, 2019, 4:07 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,386
It's perfectly fine as a small reliever airport for local service to a limited number of destinations, like other airports AS serves, such as SBA, SBP, and STS. None of those airports need to turn into LAX to not be "lousy", so why does PAE need service expansion (especially given that the airport operator was chartered by the owners to NOT make a large airport out of PAE)?
Last edited by eponymous_coward; Aug 15, 2019 at 11:31 pm
Aug 15, 2019, 7:01 pm
#18
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: ANC
Programs: Alaska 100k
Posts: 1,012
I don’t understand why Snohomish was so adamant about restricting slots to this airport. I spend a lot of time at PAE and there is a steady stream of heavy Dreamlifters, 777, 787 leaving at all hours. Restricting gates for passenger Embraer RJs seems silly.
Aug 15, 2019, 7:09 pm
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: PDX
Programs: AS DL
Posts: 9,038
Why's that? Is LGA's future limited because of slots? DCA's? LHR?
It's perfectly fine as a small reliever airport for local service to a limited number of destinations, like other airports AS serves, such as SBA, SBP, and STS. None of those airports need to turn into LAX to not be "lousy", so why does PAE need service expansion (especially given that the airport operator what chartered by the owners to NOT make a large airport out of PAE)?
It's perfectly fine as a small reliever airport for local service to a limited number of destinations, like other airports AS serves, such as SBA, SBP, and STS. None of those airports need to turn into LAX to not be "lousy", so why does PAE need service expansion (especially given that the airport operator what chartered by the owners to NOT make a large airport out of PAE)?
PAE's future growth is lousy for passengers because it will only have 24 flights. Eventually, larger planes, such as the 737-900ER will come, followed by higher fares. After a year or two, the limit should be lifted. There could be 4 gates, which would mean about 35 flights per day. To keep the restrictions shows that the local government is evil.
Aug 15, 2019, 7:10 pm
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: PDX
Programs: AS DL
Posts: 9,038
Aug 15, 2019, 11:24 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,386
The owners of the airport (Snohomish County) don't want the operator to spend the money to build the additional gates. Why should they be forced to? They are complying with the law regarding PAE- it requires a commercial terminal. It does NOT require being a large airport, or expanding from the current size if the ownership doesn't care to.
The local government is representing their constituencies, some of whom aren't mindless cheerleaders for "MOAR PLANES" aka FlyerTalkers. In democracies and republics, we make compromises with our neighbors and fellow citizens sometimes instead of ignoring their concerns.
The local government is representing their constituencies, some of whom aren't mindless cheerleaders for "MOAR PLANES" aka FlyerTalkers. In democracies and republics, we make compromises with our neighbors and fellow citizens sometimes instead of ignoring their concerns.
Aug 15, 2019, 11:36 pm
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: PDX
Programs: AS DL
Posts: 9,038
The local government is representing their constituencies, some of whom aren't mindless cheerleaders for "MOAR PLANES" aka FlyerTalkers. In democracies and republics, we make compromises with our neighbors and fellow citizens sometimes instead of ignoring their concerns.
Aug 16, 2019, 7:34 am
#23
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,124
PAE's growth is entirely due to flight restrictions. If the airport was fully open to unlimited flights, probably Spirit would come in and have 2 flights and that's it. Since only 24 flights are allowed, AS and UA scrambled to grab as many as possible.
PAE's future growth is lousy for passengers because it will only have 24 flights. Eventually, larger planes, such as the 737-900ER will come, followed by higher fares. After a year or two, the limit should be lifted. There could be 4 gates, which would mean about 35 flights per day. To keep the restrictions shows that the local government is evil.
PAE's future growth is lousy for passengers because it will only have 24 flights. Eventually, larger planes, such as the 737-900ER will come, followed by higher fares. After a year or two, the limit should be lifted. There could be 4 gates, which would mean about 35 flights per day. To keep the restrictions shows that the local government is evil.
Sep 2, 2019, 10:47 pm
#26
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SEA/DEN
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold, Delta Gold Medallion, Hilton Honors Gold
Posts: 311
When the cap increased from the originally planned 12 to 24 flights, that all changed. If you look at the original renderings of the terminal, you'll see the passenger ramp to the hardstand was positioned differently. It was redesigned to provide better access to the hardstand, probably when they realized it's going to be used almost as much as the 2 jet bridges. However, the terminal building is still the same size, with just two hold rooms designed to handle two 737s at a time. It's now handling up to three Embraer 175s. The passenger holding area gets a bit tight when there's three Embraer 175s, especially in the 2A/2B holding area. It'll only get worse if flights get upgraded to 737s.
PAE-PDX was reduced from 4x to 3x to allow them to increase PAE-PHX from 1x to 2x daily.
Sep 3, 2019, 12:06 am
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: PDX
Programs: AS DL
Posts: 9,038
The terminal has 2 passenger holding rooms, not 3. The hardstand position, called 2B, was not planned to be a regularly used position. The terminal was designed to comfortably handle 12 flights a day on 737s, out of the two jet bridge gates, with the hardstand used either for Remain Over Night (RON) or irregular operations in the event of delays/diversions.
When the cap increased from the originally planned 12 to 24 flights, that all changed. If you look at the original renderings of the terminal, you'll see the passenger ramp to the hardstand was positioned differently. It was redesigned to provide better access to the hardstand, probably when they realized it's going to be used almost as much as the 2 jet bridges. However, the terminal building is still the same size, with just two hold rooms designed to handle two 737s at a time. It's now handling up to three Embraer 175s. The passenger holding area gets a bit tight when there's three Embraer 175s, especially in the 2A/2B holding area. It'll only get worse if flights get upgraded to 737s.
When the cap increased from the originally planned 12 to 24 flights, that all changed. If you look at the original renderings of the terminal, you'll see the passenger ramp to the hardstand was positioned differently. It was redesigned to provide better access to the hardstand, probably when they realized it's going to be used almost as much as the 2 jet bridges. However, the terminal building is still the same size, with just two hold rooms designed to handle two 737s at a time. It's now handling up to three Embraer 175s. The passenger holding area gets a bit tight when there's three Embraer 175s, especially in the 2A/2B holding area. It'll only get worse if flights get upgraded to 737s.
If there is any crowding, it will be the fault of the county which made these road blocks. It's the county that unwittingly made the place busy by limiting flights. If they didn't limit flights and create a potential shortage and long term inability to get slots, there might only have been 2 Allegiant Airlines flights to LAS.
Alaska Airlines learned from Dallas Love Field that if the gates are limited, once they are occupied, you are shut out forever. That's why they operated so many flights from the start from Paine Field.