Last edit by: missamo80
2018-06-01: Service is delayed pending an FAA re-review.
Destinations announced 2018-01-16:
LAS
LAX
SNA
PHX
PDX
SFO
SAN
SJC
Other FT PAE threads of note:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan/460657-paine-field.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-news/429086-seattles-paine-field-may-opened-up-airlines.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/west/344944-everett-paine-field-can-support-scheduled-service-study-says.html
Destinations announced 2018-01-16:
LAS
LAX
SNA
PHX
PDX
SFO
SAN
SJC
Other FT PAE threads of note:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan/460657-paine-field.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-news/429086-seattles-paine-field-may-opened-up-airlines.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/west/344944-everett-paine-field-can-support-scheduled-service-study-says.html
QX intends to start service from PAE (Paine Field/Everett, WA)
#166
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,376
Presumably, as in the case of WN wanting to fly out of BFI a few years ago, what's to be gained is massive savings on landing fees at SEA. At the time, WN was paying $11.9M a year to the Port of Seattle, and saw that number going up so fast it was willing to front $130M to build a terminal at BFI, in order to reduce their annual costs to just $2.5M while still serving the same metro market.
Of course, a secondary airport with massively reduced costs would fit WN just perfectly, allowing it to offer more competitive fares. But as usual, the entrenched interests who would stand to lose money (basically everyone but WN) fought the idea kicking and screaming, and the proposal was nixed so that we could all keep overpaying the Port of Seattle for their spectacular service.
Of course, a secondary airport with massively reduced costs would fit WN just perfectly, allowing it to offer more competitive fares. But as usual, the entrenched interests who would stand to lose money (basically everyone but WN) fought the idea kicking and screaming, and the proposal was nixed so that we could all keep overpaying the Port of Seattle for their spectacular service.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...alaska04m.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...ng-1184887.php
Oh, and there's the problem of needing infrastructure. (Georgetown is not really set up for a passenger airport.)
And so it goes.
#167
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SEA, PAE, BLI
Programs: WN A-List Preferred, AS, DL Kryptonium
Posts: 1,604
It's amazing how 2 years can change the situation. A passenger terminal has been approved and AS sent an email to Snohomish County Council members saying that it might be interested in flying to PAE even if other carriers aren't.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/loca...berg/24256817/
I could definitely see PAE-PDX on QX, PAE-LAX on OO operating for AS or DL, and PAE-LAS on G4 or on OO operating for AS.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/loca...berg/24256817/
I could definitely see PAE-PDX on QX, PAE-LAX on OO operating for AS or DL, and PAE-LAS on G4 or on OO operating for AS.
#168
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: United States
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Amtrak
Posts: 4,647
Perhaps PAE-PDX would seem to be the low-hanging fruit. The others really would depend on market demand/analysis. I could see PAE-GEG as a possibility, too.
#169
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: ANC
Programs: Alaska 100k
Posts: 1,012
It's amazing how 2 years can change the situation. A passenger terminal has been approved and AS sent an email to Snohomish County Council members saying that it might be interested in flying to PAE even if other carriers aren't.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/loca...berg/24256817/
I could definitely see PAE-PDX on QX, PAE-LAX on OO operating for AS or DL, and PAE-LAS on G4 or on OO operating for AS.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/loca...berg/24256817/
I could definitely see PAE-PDX on QX, PAE-LAX on OO operating for AS or DL, and PAE-LAS on G4 or on OO operating for AS.
#170
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,718
I would love to see PAE-SLC on DL for easy connections to the eastern half the country. Make that happen and ShuttlePark2 at Sea-Tac would be seeing a lot less of me.
#171
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SEA, PAE, BLI
Programs: WN A-List Preferred, AS, DL Kryptonium
Posts: 1,604
I haven't parked near Sea-Tac in awhile as Shuttle Express has been very affordable out of Everett/Mukilteo and taking Sound Transit to the airport only costs $3.50 with an ORCA card. It'd be hard to justify a PAE-SEA flight when one can travel between the two areas in 45-90 minutes.
#172
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,830
BLI-SLC didn't work, so I'm not sure if PAE-SLC would. PAE-LAX would have more O&D traffic, including some from Boeing which has sizable operations right next to LAX. The new AA might even consider serving that route.
I haven't parked near Sea-Tac in awhile as Shuttle Express has been very affordable out of Everett/Mukilteo and taking Sound Transit to the airport only costs $3.50 with an ORCA card. It'd be hard to justify a PAE-SEA flight when one can travel between the two areas in 45-90 minutes.
I haven't parked near Sea-Tac in awhile as Shuttle Express has been very affordable out of Everett/Mukilteo and taking Sound Transit to the airport only costs $3.50 with an ORCA card. It'd be hard to justify a PAE-SEA flight when one can travel between the two areas in 45-90 minutes.
#173
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,718
I haven't parked near Sea-Tac in awhile as Shuttle Express has been very affordable out of Everett/Mukilteo and taking Sound Transit to the airport only costs $3.50 with an ORCA card. It'd be hard to justify a PAE-SEA flight when one can travel between the two areas in 45-90 minutes.
#174
Join Date: Aug 2013
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 917
This, and the reference to BLI-SLC earlier reinforce the truth that not every route tried by an airline is successful.
But the failure of those two routes really doesn't say much about Paine Field. BLI and YYJ serve two entirely different markets from each other, and neither serve the greater Seattle area in any significant way.
Time will tell - Alaska, Delta and the rest all have their immense data stockpiles to sift through for what might work from there. Hopefully they get it right.
But the failure of those two routes really doesn't say much about Paine Field. BLI and YYJ serve two entirely different markets from each other, and neither serve the greater Seattle area in any significant way.
Time will tell - Alaska, Delta and the rest all have their immense data stockpiles to sift through for what might work from there. Hopefully they get it right.
#175
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SEA, PAE, BLI
Programs: WN A-List Preferred, AS, DL Kryptonium
Posts: 1,604
I see no case for a PAE-SEA flight either, but I defy you to get from south Snohomish County to SEA on public transport in less than 90 minutes. From my house it's a car ride to the nearest bus stop, then two buses plus one light rall ride. Adding dwell times it takes well over two hours - longer than many of my SEA-XXX flights. Forget it. I'll drive to SEA but would prefer to drive to PAE which is < 20 from home.
PAE would get a number of Seattle-area passengers who would not drive to BLI and then connect in Seattle. PAE would also have more passengers wanting to travel outside of the Western US/Hawaii. PAE-DFW or PAE-MSP might also work in the future. DL has PSC-MSP and AA has service to DFW from cities like PSP and ONT. Running a 1x daily PAE-DFW which RONs in PAE with an MD-80/A319/E-175 could very well work at least on a seasonal basis.
#176
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,718
PAE would get a number of Seattle-area passengers who would not drive to BLI and then connect in Seattle. PAE would also have more passengers wanting to travel outside of the Western US/Hawaii. PAE-DFW or PAE-MSP might also work in the future. DL has PSC-MSP and AA has service to DFW from cities like PSP and ONT. Running a 1x daily PAE-DFW which RONs in PAE with an MD-80/A319/E-175 could very well work at least on a seasonal basis.
#177
#178
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seattle
Programs: AS - MVP75k, Marriott - Titanium, Hertz - PC
Posts: 225
As someone who lives very near PAE, I hope this actually gets off the ground (pun intended). Mukilteo seems to have finally given in (since the ruling). I'm not sure the Q400s are any louder than the 747s that take off (sarcastic) but I know they are quieter than the Dreamlifter. The Q400 or the E175s are definitely more quite than the vintage war planes that fly out of there.
#179
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,376
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/07/sup...nger-terminal/
Supreme Court rejects Mukilteo’s suit, clears way for Paine Field passenger terminal
Supreme Court rejects Mukilteo’s suit, clears way for Paine Field passenger terminal
#180
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,356
how about consolidating w the more current "New Flights from Paine Field" thread