johnp012001

I agree, and love the fact that we're seeing more destinations. However, there are other routes that used to be all AS that are now QX/AS or just QX, including PDX-OAK/SMF/SFO, and as you mentioned ONT and BUR. The (relatively) recent additions of SAN and LAS just added to that feeling. I'm glad to hear that AS is taking back LAS and SAN. Northern CA isn't THAT far on a small plane, and BUR/ONT are kind of thin routes, if you like to fly to those airports I guess you should be glad that you can. But LAS and SAN are pretty long trips on a CR7, and one would think should be able to support AS capacity. The PDX-PVR flight appears to be extremely successful! Flew in Jan and it was 80%+ full. Tried to book flights in Feb for Mar, and flights were sold out! Keep supporting these new routes Portland!!!

dgreen12

http://www.alaskaair.com/www2/Promo/...asp?pid=AS0710

JayManLB

Today, Easter Sunday, 4/8/2007, I saw a Horizon Air CRJ on approach into LGB. Interestingly, there is no announcement or news about new service from Horizon from LGB. As I understand LGB has very strict slot rules, and has to announce destinations 90-120 days from the date an application for slots has been approved, and then they have another short period of time to actually operate those slots, otherwise, they will lose their significant deposit with the city, and the slots will go to another airline. In addition, we are still waiting on the status of a new airline, BAG Holdings, to announce its intentions to serve LGB or forfeit slots. Anyone with insider information??

Chugach

I believe Horizon's CRJ's are slot exempt due to their size. The slots control mainline aircraft. When SEA-LGB was first started, it was all QX because AS hadn't secured the slots. As soon as the slots were acquired it became an AS station.

EIPremier

There is no scheduled Horizon service into LGB, and I'm also not finding any record of a Horizon arrival into LGB in the past few days.

QXFAPDX

Just curious, but when AS served OAK, SMF and SFO exclusively, how many nonstops did they offer daily before QX entered those markets? I wonder if it is close to the number offered today? Also, I could be wrong but it was my understanding that the QX flights to LAS and SAN where in addition to the AS schedule as AS never operated flights at those times. If that is the case, then AS woudn't be taking them back, just taking them over. I do agree that LAS and SAN are very long on a CR7 though, even for me

PDXFlyBoy

The evening LAS (on an MD80) and SAN (on a B737-400) turns used to be operated by AS flown by PDX based FA's prior to QX operating them this year.

I'd wish QX would keep the AM turn for additional frequency due it was always a good load out of PDX and another option than a 0800 departure from LAS. Maybe it will return in the future.

QXFAPDX

Thanks for the clarification PDXFlyboy.

johnp012001

Well, I had 2.5 hours to ponder why a CR7 is so much more uncomfortable than a 73X. LAS-PDX, after we taxied, we spent 20 minutes waiting as they changed the runways they were using. Seats are the same width. Pitch is only about an inch less, not THAT much, right? As my friend was about to climb out of his seat trying to get comfortable, I realized it's the narrow fuselage. The curve is so tight that it's like sitting at the exit row on a 757, with the slide at your feet. So, the added frequency is very nice, especially since the AS flights haven always been at relatively inconvenient times, but I think I'd opt for the AS flights over the added frequencies. It's just a bit too long. Ironically, they had a heck of a time getting 2 people to give up their cramped little seat! For the 940 they were offering choice of getting out on the late night flight, or accomodations and fly out the next morning. Now, if they would only have provided some gambling money!

eastwest

Obviously, there are limits, but generally speaking, I prefer frequency. I'm willing to cram myself into an RJ (and I'm 6'3") for 2 to 3 hours if it means I get a non-stop vs a connection or if I get added choice in when I depart (aka frequency.)

I say that as a paying passenger, too...not just as an employee.

What do others out there think?

Westcoaster

I also would take AS over frequency. The CRJ is the most uncomfortable plane I've been on; even the QX prop planes are better. On a 2 or 3 hour flight the CRJ lav makes the 737 lav look luxurious. And I don't drink so the free booze on QX does nothing for me.

I'm wondering if age is a factor. When I was 25 I might not have minded the CRJ so much. But now that I'm older with a few aches and pains I'm much less tolerant of physical discomfort.

Eastbay1K

I tend to agree (well, save the booze ) - The backaches I've walked off some planes with just isn't worth it. That said, I get them from AS F seats, but the QX CRJ is a terrible plane to sit in for too long.

sxf24

The only way I'd take a CR7 is in 1B or D where you can stretch your legs into the galley. The free beer also helps.

CZBB

I agree, I'd rather have the flight on a CRJ than no flight at all. PDX-LAS has got to be 2hrs max (BLI-LAS is 2:25, YVR-LAS is 2:35). I sat on a CRJ700 for 5+ hours (AC's IAH-YYC the longest CRJ flight I'm aware of, bad headwinds and an hour on the ground to takeoff), and it was no worse than being on a 737 or A320.

The CRJ concept has opened routes that would otherwise require a change elsewhere or has allowed more frequency. Would you prefer PDX-SEA (DH8) SEA-SAN (737) vs PDX-SAN on a CRJ?

As QX get more into their fleet, I suspect they'll start a lot of flights to Canadian ski and vacation destinations long and thin from other places in their network. SFO-YLW SFO-YYJ for example as well as more mexico flights from places other than LAX and SEA

Icelandair

No way QX is growing quite a bit in capacity. The fleet plan calls for all of the Q200's (28 of them) to go away, but they've purchased 31 Q400's as well with options on more of them.