Seattle’s Alaska Airlines expanded its route structure to the East Coast again Wednesday, announcing new nonstop service from Sea-Tac Airport to Orlando, Fla.
When service begins May 22, Orlando will be the fifth transcontinental destination for the nation’s ninth-largest airline.
Alaska now serves Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., and Miami from its Sea-Tac hub. Before September 2001, the airline’s eastern-most destination was Phoenix.
Alaska began transcontinental service to supplement its traditional route network up and down the West Coast when the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and subsequent business slump cut airline traffic.
The airline’s announcement of daily service to Orlando came less than a week after its announcement that it is seeking permission to serve Guadalajara, Mexico, from Los Angeles.
Both new routes, said the airline, are underserved by other airlines.
Orlando is the largest U.S. market not currently served by nonstop service from Sea-Tac. Getting to the central Florida vacation metropolis now requires a stop at an airline hub city such as Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis or Denver.
The Orlando area is the home of a variety of attractions, including Walt Disney World, Universal Studios Orlando and SeaWorld Orlando.
“It’s hard to believe that until now there hasn’t been an easier way to get from Seattle to Orlando,” said Gregg Saretsky, Alaska’s executive vice president of marketing and planning.
In the case of Guadalajara, American Airlines recently stopped serving the city, Mexico’s second-largest, from Los Angeles. That left Delta as the only U.S. airline serving the route.
Alaska had served the Mexican city until 1995, but dropped the route to pursue better opportunities.
Alaska’s success on its new transcontinental routes is prompting The Boeing Co. to offer the airline a chance to become a launch customer for the newest version of its best-selling 737 aircraft.
The 737-900X, which Boeing is hoping to launch this year, would provide the airline with greater range than the 172-passenger 737-900s it recently began flying on its daily Miami nonstop.
Alaska began service to Miami last fall after American Airlines canceled its nonstop service from Sea-Tac.
The airline initially flew the route with a 737-700 aircraft, but recently substituted the 737-900, which carries 52 more passengers but has somewhat shorter range than the 737-700.
During certain wind and weather conditions, the 737-900 doesn’t have enough range to fly westward nonstop from Miami to the Puget Sound area with a full load of passengers.
That means the airline must leave 10 seats vacant to ensure the aircraft can reach Sea-Tac without a refueling stop.
Boeing’s 737-900X would offer the airline the option of greater range, allowing Alaska to fly nonstop westbound from Florida with all seats filled.
Saretsky said Boeing is marketing the aircraft to European charter airlines in configurations carrying more than 200 passengers. If Alaska buys the 900X, he said, the company won’t increase the passenger capacity.
Alaska was the launch customer for the 737-900.
Alaska recently said it is considering both Boeing and Airbus aircraft to replace its older MD-80 and 737 aircraft. Alaska has been an all-Boeing airline.
Seattle-based Alaska Airlines was the launch customer for Boeing’s 737-900, shown at its debut at the Renton plant in 2000. Now Boeing wants Alaska to order a longer-range version of the plane, the 737-900X, to serve transcontinental routes such as Seattle to Orlando, the airline announced Wednesday.
————————————————————————————
In Other news…. the 717. Suprise, Suprise… Boieng are to consider weather to take it to the next step and create the 717-300.
Heres the article:
LONG BEACH, Calif., Feb 28 (Reuters) – Boeing Co.BA.N plans to decide by mid-year whether or not it can muster enough orders to justify building a stretch version of its smallest commercial jet, the money-losing 717, the head of the program said on Friday.
Boeing vice president Jim Phillips told reporters that airlines including AirTran Holdings Inc.AAI.N , Midwest Airlines MEH.N , formerly Midwest Express, and European members of the Star Alliance were interested in a stretched 717-300 version of the fuel-efficient plane, if Boeing went ahead.
Boeing generally considers a substantial number of orders from at least two carriers would economically justify a line extension.
“If the interest appears strong, and we are getting those indications … hopefully, I say, mid-year, sometime before the end of the third quarter it will all come together,” Phillips said.
Chicago-based Boeing has cut production of the 106-seat twin-engine aircraft to one per month and has enough orders at that rate to keep the lights on in the Long Beach, California, factory for about three years.
Midwest Airlines took delivery on Friday in Long Beach of the first 717-200 of 25 it ordered, and it has an option for 25 more.
The Boeing board would have to approve a plan to build bigger 717s, which would carry 20 to 22 more seats and fly about the same distance.
The plane has a range of a relatively short 1,430 nautical miles (2,645 km) or 2,060 nautical miles (3,815 km) in a high gross weight version, but it is tuned for making shorter hops of a few hundred miles rather than cross-country flights.
Boeing has reported a “forward loss” of $250 million from the program, as orders never reached the originally planned 200. Boeing has booked orders for just 153, of which 115 have been delivered. About 10 airlines fly the jet
The Star Alliance is also considering buying the current 717-200 as a bloc, which would give them more negotiating power and offer Boeing a larger order, Phillips said.
He said there was interest in Europe in the group, which includes Germany’s Lufthansa LHAG.F and Scandinavia’s SAS AB SAS.ST , Australia’s Qantas Airways QAN.AX and United Airlines UAL.N among others.
Midwest Airlines Chief Executive Tim Hoeksema, who accepted delivery of the 717, said he had at least a year to decide whether to exercise an option to order 25 more of the planes.
Midwest could use stretch versions of the 717 to replace its fleet of MD-80s, which shares some of its design features. Boeing inherited the 717 program in 1997 when it bought rival McDonnell Douglas. The MD-80 carries up to 172 passengers.
Midwest will use five of its MD-80s to power a new low-cost carrier designed to attract leisure travelers.
Hoeksema said the carrier would have a new name, which indicated it was affiliated with Midwest Airlines, in about a month. Midwest on Wednesday said it would launch the airline in the third quarter and also said it was temporarily laying off 13 percent of workers.
By: MapleLeaf_330 - 3rd March 2003 at 16:02
Agreed. Though hopefully there will always be choice of alliances.
By: KabirT - 3rd March 2003 at 15:56
Yes a brand loyalty…..which benifits all….now you dont see those kind of things everyday.
By: MapleLeaf_330 - 3rd March 2003 at 15:51
I agree that airlines want to improve the “system” for their passengers, but at the end of the day it’s another form of brand loyalty, much like frequent flyer programs.
By: KabirT - 3rd March 2003 at 15:41
Alliances are not only meant for profits and betterment for the airline members……its “actualy” also there for betterment of passengers and connecting the globe easily.
By: MapleLeaf_330 - 3rd March 2003 at 14:47
It’s never been my understanding that “global quality” has been the goal of the alliances, outside of some basic understandings as the writer has eluded to. The goal, in my opinion, has been increased efficiency, proft and access to ports of call.
China is obviously a major achievement for whomever secures an entrance into the market place.
While not having access up-to-date numbers, I disagree that Oneworld is floundering so far behind Star, as seems to be implied in this article. You have two major carriers, AA and BA, together giving enormous route networks, plus several European, most noteably EI and Iberia (can’t think of code at the moment), and QF is quite strong in Oceana/Asia.
I think that the Skyteam Alliance is not given enough credit either. The scope of AF’s route network is fantastic, and when coupled with DL and Korean, they manage, in my observation, to use fewer airlines, reach a vast number of destinations, and I would think, have a lower cost base. Mexicana gives them access to Latin America, AF, gives them Africa and the far east (not to mention the obvious European network) and DL gives them the Atlantic and North America. Now with DL’s marketing agreements with CO and NW this alliance becomes even more powerful. Is there any chance that KL will join, or does this compete with AF? I know that they have been seeking their own alliance. Plus with AF, DL and Korean, you have access to some of the biggest hubs in the world, namely Atlanta, Paris and Seoul.
Perhaps in the future Paris will become increasingly more attractive than it already is with the operation of no-frills directly from CDG (easyjet). I may be wrong, but I think in Europe it must be the biggest hub airport with no-frills flying out of it. Good news potentially for AF, even if it competes with its own product, perhaps they will have to introduce a no frills product to compete. Getting off on a tangent there.
Just my thoughts.
By: A330Crazy - 3rd March 2003 at 00:13
Could be, I have been reading into this alot as of late. I wouldn’t like to see this happen though, as I think there are too many in the star already, but also by doing this it could threaten thier relaionships with BA and AA.
One news article which caught my eye was this one:
Could Star Alliance tempt Qantas away from Oneworld ?
The demise of Ansett Australia dealt a considerable blow to Star Alliance operations across the continent, enabling Qantas to further increase their domestic market share – and feed into their Oneworld partner operations.
As Qantas awaits regulatory approval for purchase of a stake in financially troubled Air New Zealand, there is mounting speculation as to the impact of such investment on the two major airline alliances – Star Alliance and Oneworld.
Air New Zealand is a member of Star Alliance – Qantas a member of Oneworld. At a recent press conference in Seoul, the CEO’s of all Star Alliance member airlines were jointly asked if Star was pursuing the possibility of attracting Qantas into their alliance. This suggestion was met with not only complete silence, but no active denial either.
Even if Qantas had an interest in switching alliance allegiance, there is a major stumbling block – namely that British Airways (a founding member of Oneworld) owns a 17 per cent stake in Qantas.
When one looks at the active growth and performance of these two global alliances, Qantas must surely envy the way in which Star Alliance has developed, whilst Oneworld has tended to stagnate, lacking the image and prominence of Star Alliance. There are airlines such as Swiss and Malaysia Airlines who have been widely touted as potential Oneworld members, but it may be the current crisis situation facing the industry will put a temporary hold on any new additions.
However one looks at it, Qantas is sitting in an enviable position to court a possible change of alliance membership, but any suggestion of a defection to Star Alliance will surely receive short thrift from their Oneworld partner and shareholder, British Airways
global alliances …. global quality ?
Aside from who is a member of which alliance, there is a key weakness amongst all three of the key bodies – Star, Oneworld and SkyTeam. This is the apparent inability to achieve real change towards creating a more “unified” set of standards amongst member airlines.
Whilst the key benefit of alliance membership is the financial benefit to the airlines themselves, passengers are promised a raft of benefits to make today’s air travel experience better and easier.
It is important that each member airline can retain its own level of individuality and identity, and continue to develop passenger loyalty through delivery of a quality service and product.
A minimum set of product standards is defined for each airline’s qualification to join an alliance – but this is of a rather lightweight format, and does not provide the means to achieve the required “alliance orientated” product quality.
In general terms, take a RTW trip using different airlines within one alliance, and you are likely to come away with some very different (and in some cases worrying) perceptions of both product and service quality.
Travel with Star Alliance for example across North, Central and South America – from Varig to Air Canada, United Airlines to Mexicana. It is likely you will come away with a perception varying from quite good to quite terrible, in terms of the standards being delivered both in product and staff service areas.
Until there is a more demanding Quality Specification for airline alliance members, we do not see any real progress being made by either Star Alliance, Oneworld or SkyTeam towards delivering this “long overdue” more unified quality standard.
Of course it may be that alliance member airline are actually more interested in realising the financial benefits that membership brings them, rather than addressing these core passenger issues.
They are all no doubt busy trying to court an alliance partner in China – if Star Alliance manage to tempt Air China into their fold, Oneworld must presumably look to welcome China Southern into their camp.
————————————————————————————
So what are your reactions guys?
By: Bhoy - 2nd March 2003 at 23:45
Re: Boeing getting serious on the 900x idea?
Originally posted by A330Crazy LONG BEACH, Calif., Feb 28 (Reuters) – The Star Alliance is also considering buying the current 717-200 as a bloc, which would give them more negotiating power and offer Boeing a larger order, Phillips said.
He said there was interest in Europe in the group, which includes Germany’s Lufthansa LHAG.F and Scandinavia’s SAS AB SAS.ST , Australia’s Qantas Airways QAN.AX and United Airlines UAL.N among others.
Now…
has some muppet at Reuters got the story wrong, or are those rumours of Qantas defecting from oneworld to Star true? 😮 :confused:
By: MSR777 - 2nd March 2003 at 20:18
I see that the 717 is now being built without the characteristic DC9 “eyebrow” windows on the flightdeck-apparantly it saves money according to Boeing.
By: KabirT - 2nd March 2003 at 15:53
If the a/c is meant for Alsaka airlines i dont see many changes in it…and if they really bring it out they are bunch of idiots!
Sign In
March 2, 2003 at 3:37 pm